Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
?
Whoa, I just came in and saw the following: " By the authority of the Special Administrative region of Hong Kong, I David Huckerby of 19 Tin Yan Road do hereby state that I, deposited with Hang Seng bank, the sum of $US 28,000,000.00 (twenty eight million dollars) for safe keeping and custody pending the time for collection by the undermentioned person. " What is that?
Picture of the skyline
The photo is very old. Can someone replace it with a more updated one, representative of the current HK skyline? --Jiang
Removed:
Image:Hongkong central kowloon.jpg Click here for the full size.
C'on, the skyline's been changed quite a bit. The observatory (or whatever it's called) at Tsim Sha Tsui was still under contruction when this photo was taken. --Jiang 06:19, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Oh wait, this is not from Victoria Peak. But still, it's not a good view. --Jiang
Map
We need a fucking map showing bridges and tunnels, to avoid a wrong impression about the connectedness of the islands with the mainland, or we can edit the map. - Patrick 19:34, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- "(bridges and tunnels not shown)" - what's the point in saying that? It's obvious they aren't shown - just look at it and the absence of brigdes and tunnels is obvious. None of our other maps show bridges or tunnels, why the need to point it out here? CGS 19:47, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).
- The remark below the map is of course intended for people who do not know that there are bridges or tunnels, and from the map get the wrong impression that there are none (most maps show them). My remark above applies also for Singapore, Denmark and Sweden, perhaps a few more. Surprisingly the CIA map of the UK does show the tunnel. - Patrick 20:08, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I added 9 bridges and tunnels to the CIA map. Can a sysop please remove the protection, then I can remove my map caption which is no longer applicable. - Patrick 21:19, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Unprotected, map caption removed. Pete 21:32, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Who protected the page? CGS 22:07, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).
The Map of Hong Kong is outdated. Sea border was re-adjusted. HenryLi 14:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Greenery
We currently have:
- Despite the population density, Hong Kong was reported to be one of the greenest cities in Asia. The majority of people live in flats in high-rise buildings. The rest of the open spaces are often covered with parks, woods and shrubs. The vertical placement of the population explains why densely populated, green city is not an oxymoronic phrase.
Does anyone else think this is somewhat misleading? If you look at the entire territory of Hong Kong (HK Island + New Territories), then yes, there is a lot of open green space. But to a visitor standing in typical locations such as Central, Tsim Sha Tsui, Wan Chai, or Yau Ma Tei, there's not much green to be found. Jpo 15:33, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, Jpo. I am a Hong Kong citizen and I've been living here since I was born. When you look around in an urban area, you really can't see much green except in those small Parks (公園) built in the middle of some residential areas. It is true, though, that there are many open green space in the New Territories and the surrounding islands which offer natural habitats for wild life (e.g. Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve, or 米埔自然護理區), but it is surely misleading if you say there is much green space in the urban area. --Cylauj 15:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hongkongers in Vancouver
isnt it true that vast numbers of hong kongers went to vancouver BC just before 1997?
Hongkonger
to Hlaw, don't you read SCMP? "Hongkonger" appears every day.
Hong Kong Elections
I removed the following text added by anon. "However, the majority of media and democratic parties criticised that the election is a falsification of democracy, in which all 400 legitimate voters for chief executive are selected by the China Government to ensure the Beijing-appointed candidate were elected. During Tung's run for second term in 2002, he was the only one candidate in the election that made him apparently unopposed for election.
Followed by the historically mass protest in July 1, 2002, the Tung's cabinet were immediately dragged in a crisis of governance. Two top officials were resigned and the cabinet was forced to reshuffle. There have been strong voices over the reform in constitution that brings suffrage to Hong Kong citizens, but the possibility for reform has been ruled out by the China Government."
Besides appearing horribly POV and non-encyclopedic, this bears strong resemblance to text which has been repeatedly removed from this page in the past. I know there's some issue with elections in Hong Kong, but to say "majority" I think a single citation should be easy to come by. Clearly needs copyediting by a person more fluent in English, also. I'm not overly motivated to add this info back into the main article, but with citation and copyediting, feel free. --ABQCat 21:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Besides being seriously POV and non-encylopedic, the paragraphs are misleading / not accurate in almost their entirety: The 800 members of the "Election Committee" which elect the Chief Executive to his second term are returned in accordance with Annex I of the Basic Law. Members include all Legislative Council Members, etc - they could not have been "selected" by the Chinese Government. Criticisms come mostly from the democratic camp who fights for univeral suffrage that the election is not representative enough. The "mass protest" is on July 1, 2003. Only one non-official member of the cabinet (James Tien) resigned (and was subsequently replaced). The Basic Law provides for universal suffrage as an ultimate aim and there is no need for "reform in constitution" to bring about that (amendment of its Annex would suffice). The National Peoples' Congress ruled out universal suffrage in 2007/08, not the room to change the method of election then, nor the possibility for universal suffrage afterwards.
- Furthermore, such information has been mostly provided in the articles on Politics of Hong Kong. It is disproportionate to place them in the main article of Hong Kong. --Hlaw 03:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Economy
Removed the following:
- Although Hong Kong has often been popularly portrayed as an example of a free market economy which operates with minimal government interference, many critics argue this reputation is undeserved arguing that the small business community and both the colonial and SAR governments have intervened heavily in the HK economy, by for example, restricting the sale of land to keep property prices high.
Unless judged in an absolute sense (under which no economy of this world would justify the name free market economy), government intervention by itself should only be regarded as one of the factors in determining how free an economy is relatively. At least the following reputable source still ranks Hong Kong at the 1st of free market economies - Government intervention has already been taken into account as one of the factors.
Heritage Foundation - Index of Economic Freedom
The following (on the location/history etc of the airport) is not a major economic issue, and the information is already in the relevant articles.
- The major airport, Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA), is located on a partly artificial island connected to Lantau Island. The airport is often called Chek Lap Kok Airport, after one of the islands it was built upon. HKIA replaced the older Kai Tak Airport, which was known for its spectacular urban approach. Kai Tak was retired after Chek Lap Kok was built and now serves as a recreational venue and has been earmarked for housing development.
-Hlaw 15:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Official Language
Should we separate it into Official written language and Official spoken language?
- There seems no "official spoken language" / "official written language" as such. Article 9 of Basic Law says that in addition to the Chinese language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary of the HKSAR. -Hlaw 04:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Victoria City
It is not appropriate to say that the capital of Hong Kong is "Victoria City". Firstly, Hong Kong is a city of China and does NOT have a capital of its own. Secondly, there is no such place as "Victoria City" in Hong Kong. There is a "victoria Harbour", but not Victoria City.
PMW
There is "Victoria City", but this name is rarely used now. Victoria City refers to the present-day Sai Wan, Sheung Wan, Central and Wan Chai, roughly. Although Hong Kong has no de facto capital, Central (in Victoria City) is actually the centre of HK's administrative and economic activities. The word "capital" in English does not only mean the capital of a nation, like London, Beijing, but also it can refer to the administrative centre of a region, like New York is the capital of the New York State, Guangzhou is the capital of Guangdong province. Thus, it is fair enough to say Victoria City is the de facto capital of HK. (147)
Actually, the capital of New York State should be Albany.
Although there is a "Vicotria Park". Also, keep in mind that there are such things as provincial capitals. While HK is just a city it is a very big city that is very distinct from China. - someone else
1906 Typhoon and Tsunami
Seems like Wikipedia is the only source to have recorded it was typhoon with tsunami on September 18, 1906. Many other sources quoted it was a typhoon only.. or with 3 typhoons hitting the colony in 12 days. -- 19:03, December 31, 2004, UTC
- Thank you. I have had a google test and this is the only source the tsunami is mentioned. The text is now hidden, and will probably removed. — Instantnood 18:13, Feb 14 2004 (UTC)
Satellite image
The Satellite image here looks really outdated.
Hong Kong's capital?
But apparently in this case the term 'capital' denotes an administrative centre constitutionally recognised by the regional government of Hong Kong. Admittedly the collectivity of 'Victoria City' does constitute some form of political centre from which policies are delivered to subordinate bodies but this de facto status remains an unwritten arrangement, at least in terms of metropolis-periphery relations; referring to the 'Victoria City' as Hong Kong's 'capital' is utterly incorrect. (Say I find it odd to introduce Sheng Wan as the capital of HK...)
If someone else's logic is adopted, then a priori the City of London is the capital of London. Londoners would laugh at such proposition...
- agreed, HK has no capital.SchmuckyTheCat 00:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. In the first place, Victoria City is more of a historical relic than an administrative boundary enforced today. I know there it's old boundaries continues to be defined in the present day constitution/legislation, but that is no different from other cities who do have their ancient city boundaries cast in legislation too. Are these ancient boundaries still relevant today? Of coz not. So why should we suddenly dig up old references to the original city boundary on HK island, and insist that it still exists as a seperate entity from the rest of Hong Kong, and revert to old references to it as a "capital city" of the same city, albeit with enlarged boundaries today?--Huaiwei 15:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Victoria" is the captial of Hong Kong, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language (fourth edition), The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (sixth edition), and Merriam-Webster Online. "Victoria" is the administrative centre of Hong Kong, according to Encyclopædia Britannica. "Victoria" is marked as the capital of Hong Kong on the map of the World Factbook prepared by the CIA of the US. — Instantnood 09:36 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
- Maps produced by Britannica, the US CIA, and so forth, also often depict Singapore's capital city on a map as the location of where the historical heart of the city was. Contemporary Singaporeans and all those familiar with this issue know that this is not accurate at all, because the capital of Singapore is the entirety of Singapore itself...no longer that historical corner of the island was was probably true 100 years ago. But for the sake of presentation, these publications are obliged to place that star symbol somewhere, so this became a convenient compromise. Hong Kong's case is actually very similar to this one. Should we therefore take those maps hook, line, and sinker then?--Huaiwei 10:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Although the name "Victoria City" or "the City of Victoria" is rarely used in everyday speeches, many Hongkongers who have study some history of the territory can tell Victoria City is the capital. And in fact most of the government departments have their head offices within the area of Victoria City. It has never been a problem among Hongkongers. Please don't try to compare everything of Hong Kong with those of Singapore. — Instantnood 17:56 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
- (response to Huaiwei) Don't play with words. I said "Victoria" is the capital according to those sources. They are not maps, they are in words, except the map of the CIA. — Instantnood 19:56 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
- Maps produced by Britannica, the US CIA, and so forth, also often depict Singapore's capital city on a map as the location of where the historical heart of the city was. Contemporary Singaporeans and all those familiar with this issue know that this is not accurate at all, because the capital of Singapore is the entirety of Singapore itself...no longer that historical corner of the island was was probably true 100 years ago. But for the sake of presentation, these publications are obliged to place that star symbol somewhere, so this became a convenient compromise. Hong Kong's case is actually very similar to this one. Should we therefore take those maps hook, line, and sinker then?--Huaiwei 10:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- the word "Victoria" doesn't even exist on this page: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html
The word "Victoria" doesn't appear in the HK Basic Law.
and in fact, no longer appears on official maps because it no longer exists!! whether it shows up in some American dictionary is meaningless.SchmuckyTheCat 00:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Is it necessary to have the capital of a place to be stated in its constitutional document? — Instantnood 17:59 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
- Isnt it strange, that quite unlike every other country or sub-division of a country, whereby the same city is always named as the national or provincial/state/district capital, we cannot seem to do the same for HK at all? While every other national or provincial government explicitly defines their capital cities, why not HK?--Huaiwei 10:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Is it necessary to have it stated in a constitutional document? Please see also the second paragraph of Tokyo#History and the article Capital of Japan debate. — Instantnood 11:05 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
- Isnt it strange, that quite unlike every other country or sub-division of a country, whereby the same city is always named as the national or provincial/state/district capital, we cannot seem to do the same for HK at all? While every other national or provincial government explicitly defines their capital cities, why not HK?--Huaiwei 10:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Is it necessary to have the capital of a place to be stated in its constitutional document? — Instantnood 17:59 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
A suggestion for the dispute
Now about the table below? -wshun 12:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
| |||||
| |||||
| Official languages | Chinese (Cantonese spoken de facto) and English | ||||
| Capital¹ | Area of the old Victoria City² | ||||
| Chief Executive | Tung Chee-hwa | ||||
| Area - Total - % water |
(Not ranked) 1,102.15 km² 4.6% | ||||
| Population - Total |
(Not ranked) 6,803,100 (July 2003) | ||||
| GDP (2003) - Total |
37th, 30th, 14th, 21st US$199 billion (PPP) | ||||
| Establishment - Date |
Handover to the PRC | ||||
| Currency | Hong Kong dollar (HKD) | ||||
| Time zone | UTC +8 (AWST) | ||||
| Internet TLD | .hk | ||||
| Calling Code | 852 also 01 from Macau | ||||
| Flower | Bauhinia | ||||
| (1) de facto administrative center, not official capital. (2) The name "Victoria City" is no longer in use. | |||||
- isnt that alot of clutter for something which is not even official?--Huaiwei 13:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is there anyone that wants a listing of Victoria City as the Capital besides Instandnood? Is this a single user crusade? SchmuckyTheCat 23:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again using the references used previously to declare Victoria the capitol, the 2002 CIA world book lists Victoria in the appendix as the former name of a seaport city in Hong Kong colony. the 2004 world book no longer lists victoria at all in it's appendixes. SchmuckyTheCat 01:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think Victoria City is the capitol, but a remark in the article may help those with old or inaccurate information. -wshun 01:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Email from HK Government:
Received: from pimx11.scig.gov.hk ([202.128.225.30]) by mc3-f29.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:31:44 -0800
As Hong Kong is the "Special Administrative Region" of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong is not a nation and so there is no capital city for Hong Kong.
SchmuckyTheCat 06:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose this ends the discussion. Its about time we get rid of that factual inaccuracy, edit the Victoria City page, delete Hong Kong from the List of capitals and larger cities by country, and of coz, rename pages such as List of cities and towns in Hong_Kong and List of cities and parishes in Macao because there is simply no such thing as multiple cities within these territories today! Why did all those pages end up like this? Because some radicals such as Instantnood kept trying to depict Hong Kong like an independent country seperate from China in wikipedia. Its about time his ulterior motives gets uncovered and scrutinised.--Huaiwei 10:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No. I never tried to depict Hong Kong as an independent sovereign states separated from China. Please don't make such accusation and make things up. — Instantnood 11:23 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
- Then explain your insistance in removing Hong Kong from all listings under the People's Republic of China. If i remember correctly, you first insisted that this should be so because supposedly "local Hong Kongers will find it an insult to be considered a part of the PRC". I am hardly surprised that this impression exists in some quarters of HKers, but unfortunately for you, they simply dont represent a united view from Hong Kong as you claim, and neither does it concur with the undeniable fact that Hong Kong IS a part of the PRC.--Huaiwei 15:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Didn't I explained? And please kindly tell where did you quote that sentence if it's a quote. — Instantnood 16:57 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- You explaination obviously has no relevance to the above questions. Insisting that HK has great autonomy does not make it an independent entity on par with the PRC. This is something I have been repeating just as often.--Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Didn't I explained? And please kindly tell where did you quote that sentence if it's a quote. — Instantnood 16:57 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- Then explain your insistance in removing Hong Kong from all listings under the People's Republic of China. If i remember correctly, you first insisted that this should be so because supposedly "local Hong Kongers will find it an insult to be considered a part of the PRC". I am hardly surprised that this impression exists in some quarters of HKers, but unfortunately for you, they simply dont represent a united view from Hong Kong as you claim, and neither does it concur with the undeniable fact that Hong Kong IS a part of the PRC.--Huaiwei 15:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No. I never tried to depict Hong Kong as an independent sovereign states separated from China. Please don't make such accusation and make things up. — Instantnood 11:23 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
- (response to SchmuckyTheCat) I am interested to know which department did you write to. Its arguments is simply ridiculous. Many dependent territories and subnational entities have capitals (which is not necessarily a city) or seats. — Instantnood 11:20 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Huaiwei, mind your language, you are crossing the line. Well, the Hong Kong government answers that there is no capital city for Hong Kong and so this should be official and final. The argument given by the Hong Kong government is stupid, but it is of no importance to our discussion. -wshun 11:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree I am crossing the line. But if you have to deal with this guy who ruins my personal talk page with his silly ramblings for weeks on end, who scrutinises my every edits in this website like a stalker, who and now tries to pick faults with anything related to Singapore, I must say my patience is reaching its last strands?--Huaiwei 15:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I thought we could have the dispute settled, and I was wrong. Nobody would be interested to "ruin" anybody's personal talk page. — Instantnood 16:58 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- Apparantly you are. There is no settlement when you are not interesting in arriving at a solution, because the only solution you would accept is your solution.--Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In my point of view it was you who were not satisfied with my arguments, and not interested to compromise on anything. Afterall I wouldn't blame anyone because a resolution is not always the outcome of a discussion. There are often something that one cannot be satisfied or convinced. — Instantnood 18:00 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- Apparantly you are. There is no settlement when you are not interesting in arriving at a solution, because the only solution you would accept is your solution.--Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I thought we could have the dispute settled, and I was wrong. Nobody would be interested to "ruin" anybody's personal talk page. — Instantnood 16:58 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- Huwaiwei, It is obvious that different cities and towns and villages exist in Hong Kong. It isn't necessary to make radical steps. The cities and towns just aren't political divisions. In the case of Victoria, it's been swallowed by the term "Central" and it's role in handling external affairs as a "capitol" is unncessary since the Basic Law was enacted (even before the handover). The argument from the government isn't stupid - Hong Kong external affairs are handled by Beijing. Instantnood - yes, many subnational entities have capitols or seats, but that is when it is politically necessary because of political divisions within the entity. For a unitary government it is superfluous. SchmuckyTheCat 14:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it is of coz true that Hong Kong does have various towns and villages within its borders, but several problems comes in. 1. They insist there are still seperate cities within contemporary Hong Kong, which is simply erroneous. For example, they argue that Victoria City and Kowloon City exists today as distinct cities in Hong Kong, which is not true, because both are by now amalgamated into one entity. Listing them as historical entites is completely acceptable, but to insist that they still exist as seperate entities is ridiculous. If they do indeed exist as seperate cities, then why are they not treated like every other city on Earth, in that they are always listed as multiple cities on maps? Why does the official HK map not show these cities at all? 2. Insisting that Hong Kong is composed of multiple cities/towns/villages has to mean, then, that the "City of Hong Kong" does NOT exist. It is now akin to being a province. Perhaps we should go round removing all references to Hong Kong as a single city? May I know which city does HKIA belong to? Tung Chung Town? 3. In "normal" cities, they do not share their physical footprints. For example, New York City does not have another city within its borders, with the smaller city not counted as part of NYC. For example, you could have the Vatican City in Rome as a seperate country, but references to Rome is understood to exclude references to the Vatican. When we talk about Hong Kong, do we exclude all references to Victoria and Kowloon cities? When we talk about Hong Kong as a "world class city", do we not refer to all those new towns within Hong Kong? If all these constituant towns and villages are part and within the borders of Hong Kong city, then may I know what is the reational of having a "list of cities in Hong Kong"? A listing of towns and villlages is ok, but cities?--Huaiwei 15:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Kowloon City is not a city, but Kowloon. The name Kowloon City came from the Kowloon Walled City. I have never said Kowloon City is a city.
- There are many definitions of the term city. For instance, both London and the City of London (the Square Mile) are categorised as cities, albeit London is referred to in its article as a conurbation. London is also listed as a capital city, and as a city that hosted the Olympic Games before. It's already a POV by sticking the term city with one single definition — Instantnood 17:07 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting choice for comparison, but you are glossing over a major difference here. The conurbation of London is specified by a fixed boundary, and its constituents, including the City of London, is also demarcated by boundaries which are actively enforced today, as well as published in contemporary maps of the City of London and the Conurbation of London. Do we have that for HK?--Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I agree that Instantnood has some sort of motive. Whether it is pedantic or political I don't know. SchmuckyTheCat 14:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if a designated place for capital has to be correspond to administrative divisions. A capital is not only a place to handle external affairs, but also the major location where most government departments have their head offices. Victoria City's role as such the location has nothing to do with the enactment of Basic Law in 1990.
- Diplomatic matters is handled by the government in Beijing, but Hong Kong deals with many external matters on its own, such as bilateral aviation agreements, extradition, trade, etc.
- I don't think it's necessary to guess anybody's motives. Consider one's arguments is much more important in such a discussion. — Instantnood 16:11 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
- And so what if Hong Kong enjoys large amounts of autonomy when this is not administered solely and specifically within Victoria City?
- The Pentagon is not in the DC either. Is it necessary to be "solely and specifically"? — Instantnood 17:11 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- So why dont you go edit the entire site and remove all references of Washington DC as the capital of the USA?--Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Simply because I don't think it has to be "solely and specifically". If you insist on "solely and specifically" then perhaps you should go modify references of the Washington DC as the capital. — Instantnood 18:03 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- I was talking about Hong Kong. Who's talking about Washington or any other capital city on Earth? Keep this discussion on and about Hong Kong unless you are trying to turn it into another discussion circus.--Huaiwei 18:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Simply because I don't think it has to be "solely and specifically". If you insist on "solely and specifically" then perhaps you should go modify references of the Washington DC as the capital. — Instantnood 18:03 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- So why dont you go edit the entire site and remove all references of Washington DC as the capital of the USA?--Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The Pentagon is not in the DC either. Is it necessary to be "solely and specifically"? — Instantnood 17:11 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- And so what if Hong Kong enjoys large amounts of autonomy when this is not administered solely and specifically within Victoria City?
Note to Instandnood Instantnood
This discussion has been going on for weeks. It is the concensus of everyone but you that that Hong Kong has no capitol city. I am inserting a NPOV sentence in the article that mentions victoria city as a center for government and administration. I will remove the twoversions header and the capitol city statement. Please stop reverting, you are being belligerent and using edit wars and misinterpretations of policies (such as putting twoversions on every page where people disagree with your new edits). If you disagree from here, please make a formal request for dispute resolution. SchmuckyTheCat 18:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It will be interesting that Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to left it out. Let's see if The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster Online and Encyclopædia Britannica will follow. — Instantnood 19:07 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
- One more note: a discussion is not a count of people. The arguments are much more important. — Instantnood 20:01 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
m-w online: note the words "formerly" in the hong kong definition. note the word "served" (past tense) in the victoria definition.
AHD, and Columbia enc, are FOR SUCK references. besides being circular to each other. Encarta gets it right. When I read it there they say the same thing I wrote here as teh NPOV addition earlier today. Plus, other sources could be wrong! SchmuckyTheCat 23:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Proposals and resolution
My proposed version, and its differences with the immediately previous version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&diff=10675074&oldid=10667915 — Instantnood 19:11 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- Reference to crown colony, sure. Hyphen removed from Tung Chee Hwa, already changed. Victoria as the capitol, no. That there is dispute about it being the capitol, no. The reference to the Japanese wiki with kyoto as a disputed capitol is a bit of Japanese kookdom even sillier than this argument, that is not a reference. That many administrative offices, embassies and such are located there because of the historical capitol, sure. SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- For details about the Kyoto-Tokyo debate, please read Capital of Japan debate.
- My bottomline is to mention Victoria City as the capital, but whether it is still the capital after the transfer of sovereignty is a matter of dispute. — Instantnood 20:32 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- There is no capital of japan debate anymore than there is debate about whether Elvis lives on a UFO. Read that articles discussion page please. Declaring Victoria City as the capitol is non-factual, not just since the handover but since the HK government was reformed, at least as far back as 1991. You have been told this, repeatedly and yet you continue to press on with this assertion. Your bottomline is wrong and there is no dispute. You are the only one making this claim after discussion. Now please stop. SchmuckyTheCat 21:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't care if there is such a debate over the capital of Japan. I just followed its way of presenting in an infobox.
- In what way was the Hong Kong Government reformed in 1991, that the Victoria City ceased to be the capital at that time? I have talked about the discussion here with some of the Hongkongers I know, and many of them were surprised why this is a matter of debate. They knew that the name is seldom used nowadays, but they agreed Victoria City is the capital. As far as I know Victoria City's status as the capital was de facto, and the government has never made any formal declaration publicly that the City ceased to be the capital. — Instantnood 22:39 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- If ordinary HKers think the capital of HK is Victoria City, then why is this certainty not reflected anywhere else outside HK, and worse, not even by the HK Government itself?--Huaiwei 09:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Probably it is because the name Victoria City is seldom used among Hongkongers in everyday conversations in the last fifteen or twenty years. People use more specific place names such as Central, the Mid-levels or Sheung Wan, without the need to mention the Victoria City. Sometimes even "Hong Kong Island" is replaced by "opposite the harbour" or "across the harbour". People from other places won't even bother to know what and where it is (not to mention about the capital..). They don't need to know. — Instantnood 09:38 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know where SchmuckyTheCat got the answer from. She/he hasn't told me. — Instantnood 09:38 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- So if even HKers themselves are beginning to refer to the term Victoria City with rare frequency nowadays, in what way is it still considered de facto? Meanwhile, could you produce any evidence to show that "most" HKers consider the capital of HK as Victoria City, and that they use the term less nowadays? Casual observations of your surroundings dosent always count, I am afraid. This is an encyclopedia...an academic piece of work. Not a personal blog of personal observations and assumptions.--Huaiwei 09:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I bet you can read some Chinese. Perhaps you can ask around on some newsgroups or message boards. There are hyperlinks to some of those at Current events in Hong Kong and Macao.
- Victoria City has been the de facto capital since its foundation, and the government has never publicly announced it ceased to be. — Instantnood 10:57 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- Chinese? Why do we need to look for information only in Chinese before this can be established? How many geographic entitites in the world defines their capital cities only in one language, but not the other?--Huaiwei 13:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Who's asking you to look for information only in Chinese?
- I suggested to ask around on some newsgroups or message boards where Hongkongers chat, if you want some proofs to what I said at 22:39, Mar 1. — Instantnood 13:56 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- We have to go to newsgroups or message boards now in order to verify information for an encyclopedia?--Huaiwei 14:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please read what I said at 22:39, Mar 1. Yes that's my own observation. If you want an academically valid proof of it perhaps newsgroups and message boards aren't the right place to go. You need a large scaled survey. — Instantnood 14:18 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- Show us a large-scaled survey then. We dont take any casual observations as de facto in this encyclopedia just because they are the deductions of a few observors, especially when dealing with an issue as important and normally undisputable as this?--Huaiwei 14:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I stick to the fact that some encyclopedias and dictionaries say so, and my observation. It was listed in the infobox for some time before you guys started challenging. If it is divided among encyclopedias and dictionaries, or it is disputed among contributors, tell readers in the article.
- One doesn't challenge something by asking her/his opposition to provide evidence. — Instantnood 14:48 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The capital city field did not exist on the Hong Kong page until fairly recently...and this was not the first time the issue was raised. It has been raised ever since anon added it in.--Huaiwei 15:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Double checked in its edit history. Victoria City was added to the infobox on Dec 4, and was first questioned on this discussion page on Dec 11. IMHO it will be best solved by telling the readers it is divided among other encyclopedias and dictionaries, and among contributors of Wikipedia, on the article Victoria City, and with short note beneath the infobox on Hong Kong. — Instantnood 16:59 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- On the HK page the sentence about "historical location" is incomplete. That's a quick change to say "historical location of the capital as a colony". The infobox does not need changing. I thought Victoria City already mentioned the former status. SchmuckyTheCat 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Basic Law
SchmuckyTheCat added the following: " Many government and administrative operations are located in Central on Hong Kong Island near the historical location of Victoria City, the capital before the adoption of the Basic Law. ". Is there any evidence for saying that the adoption of the Basic Law in 1990 made the City ceased to be the capital? Should it be within rather than near? The limits of the Victoria City is still stated in law. Why is it historical location? The location is still the same. — Instantnood 20:25 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- Why before HKBL? The Basic Law basically put an end to the colonial system in preparation for the handover. The colonial system had political entities for managing, and defining, traditional city sized areas. Once the Basic Law was in place and the government became unitary with a legislative body and broken up into large districts. Distinct "cities" ceased to be.
Victoria City is a relic, it may be a specific area with the old name, but as a political entity it is a relic.
That is also the answer to why it's a historical location. Obviously the area still exists, but the capitol being there is historical. It is also historically interesting in the touristy kind of meaning to "historical".
And, I said "near" and not "within" because nothing holds government offices to that area - some departments may even relocate to Kowloon.
You ask to prove that establishment of HKBL made VC "cease to be the capital", you are asking to prove a negative. The HK government has stated, a positive assertion, that the SAR has no capitol. I will not attempt to prove the negative corollary of what made it stop being the capitol. SchmuckyTheCat 21:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am afraid that is not the case. The Basic Law was passed by the the NPC, PRC's parliament in 1990, 7 years before the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. The Basic Law was not in effect in Hong Kong until 1997. District boards were set up in the 1982, and the Sanitary Board transformed into one of the two municipal councils in 1983. Another municipal council was set up in 1985. The legislative council since 1843, and the first elections, though indirect ones, were introduced in 1985. If there were some events that made the City no longer the capital, it shouldn't be as late as 1990, and it wasn't because of the Basic Law.
The government replied you by e-mail that Hong Kong does not have a capital at the time being. But it did not tell when it ceased to be, to support your claims that it was because of the Basic Law. And you failed to provide the information (hyperlink or e-mail address) for other people to verify the e-mail from the government.
The definition of Victoria City is still useful in administration. For instance, land lots are numbered separately by each "demarcation district" (DD), and Victoria City is one of DDs. Land leases are different within the City, on the rest of Hong Kong Island, in Kowloon, New Kowloon and the rest of the New Territories.
Yes some government offices are located outside of the City, but most departments have their head offices within the City. Around the world many departments of different countries (and subnational entities) have their headquarters outside the capital too. The Pentagon is already an example. — Instantnood 09:05 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)
- How does demarcation districts accord them city status? We do not dispute that there may be administrative boundaries within Hong Kong, and is often so in many other cities too, but you are trying to argue that these internal boundaries are city boundaries. This is the assumption I am disputing, and you have yet to proof to us that Hong Kong is indeed composed of multiple independent cities? If we cannot even establish the existance of independent cities within the territory of HK, then how will we be able to determine the continued existance of Victoria City as a seperate capital city today?--Huaiwei 13:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was not using districts to accord city status, but to say that Victoria City is not just simply relic.
The DDs do not correspond to the districts. They are used by the Lands Department to assign lot numbers. The definition of Victoria City is still useful in administrative matters of the government, e.g. lot numbers and duration of land leases.
Hong Kong has no official or legal definition for "city" or "town", and the boundaries of the districts are not drawn according to the natural extent of the cities, towns or villages.
In my opinion a capital does not have to be a separate or independent city within the entity. — Instantnood 14:51 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)
E-Mail from the government
SchmuckyTheCat would you mind telling which government department sent you the answer? — Instantnood 20:25 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
- yes, as I said, I went to info.gov.hk and sent a general query. SchmuckyTheCat 21:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tung Chee Hwa
For most people in Hong Kong the names on official records are written without the hyphen. — Instantnood 17:49 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- yes, your valid corrections get lost in the wholesale replacement of articles because of your edit warring. please stop reverting. SchmuckyTheCat 18:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is there any possible resolution? — Instantnood 19:03 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
- Hasent the name already been edited? Meanwhile, didnt he step down yesterday?--Huaiwei 19:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No not yet. — Instantnood 19:30 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)
- You refering to whether he stepped down or not right? Yeah....we will be waiting for updates. Will be cool if we can update this faster then any other information source out there. :D --Huaiwei 08:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Infobox
You can also use template:Hong Kong infobox.--Jerryseinfeld 23:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Official languages
Although no law explicitly states which spoken language(s) of Chinese is/are official, both Cantonese and Mandarin (Putonghua) are accepted as the official languages at formal occassions. Intepretor service is provided in English, Cantonese and Mandarin at meetings of the Legislative Council, and at press conferences of the government. — Instantnood 02:06 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)
English is being phased out?
Is English is being phased out? Is English still being used in Education ? or the HK Government?--Jondel 01:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- English is still an official language and it is stated in the Basic Law, the constitution. It is used in teaching, although the government prefers secondary school to use the mother tongues of the students. All students learn the English language, and some 25% study other subjects in English. — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Should it be written as "Cantonese and Mandarin are both de facto official"? — Instantnood 14:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I think so. English is not an official language of the United States but de facto. It has to be declared in the constitution.--Jondel 01:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Dependent
Hong Kong is not a dependent territory. It is a "special" territory. Both categories would be superfluous. Also, category of dependent territories does not seem to list individual territoires but is organized as a list of other nations dependents. This same reasoning applies to Macau and I am pasting this same text there. (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 22:50, Mar 10, 2005)
- It would be better to merge with the discussion at Talk:Macau#Dependent. — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Tung Chee Hwa's resignation
Tung announced his submission of resignation on Thursday, Mar 10. Yet his resignation is pending to endorsement by the Central People's Government (CPG) of the PRC. Donald Tsang, the Chief Secretary, has not assumed the duty as acting chief executive as a result of the resign. He's assuming the role as acting chief executive because Tung is now in Beijing, the same practice as when the chief executive is on holiday or is out of town. In other words Tung is still the chief executive, until the resignation is endorsed by the CPG. — Instantnood 21:08, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)