Talk:Military of Hong Kong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hong Kong (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.
Redirect page Redirect  This article has been rated as Redirect-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge proposal[edit]

User:Huaiwei proposed to merge Military of Hong Kong and PLA Hong Kong Garrison [1] [2]. The two articles have different focuses and aspects. The former article is about miliary of Hong Kong in general, with facts and figures to allow cross-country comparison. The latter article is specifically about the PLA garrison in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 08:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "military of Hong Kong", when it is basically a PLA garrison. The information for one applies to the other. "Corss-country" comparison is a dangerous term to use, when we know the Chinese takes care of military operations in the two SARS. Would it make sense to compare the military in HK and China? Or HK with with any other independent country when the PLA can effectively simply shift its entire military focus onto HK should the later come under military attack? Last but not least, why is this page/category in existance when the military of the PRC applies directly to the entirety of the PRC? If this latest concern is disputed, then what rational is there in trying to differentiate between HK and the rest of China in "economic concerns"?--Huaiwei 09:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Interesting argument. How would it be possible for the PRC to shift its entire military focus onto Hong Kong? :-)
Please note there are articles on military topics of many sovereign States and dependent territories, as long as they're covered by the WikiProject for countries. On the meantime please don't, no matter intentional or not, confuse or equate SARs and SARS. — Instantnood 11:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I do wonder if you have any background in the military, although basic common sense wont have you asking me such a strange question. Should a threat be pinpointed in any part of a country, it has the legal means to move military focus on that area. If Zimbabwe decides to attack HK tomorrow, Beijing can just fire missles from any part of the PRC, and not just from within HK. Can the same thing be said if HK's military concerns are not that of Beijing's? No. So how accurate is it for someone to compare the "military of HK" with any other independent state, when in a real wartime situation, the adversary is more likely to be facing the military of the PRC and not just the PLA garrison in HK? No I seriously do not think you need to go to boot camp to realise this, right?--Huaiwei 16:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
But Huaiwei, the article doesn't compare the HK garrison with any other (real) countries. Almost all of the "data" says N/A, Not applicable. I could go either way on whether this article should exist or not, it's purpose seems to be to proclaim, repeatedly, to an uninformed persion who went looking that HK is not independent militarily. That's a legit purpose. That purpose could also be served in a merge and redirect. SchmuckyTheCat 20:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but I was addressing Instantnood's commentary above that this page is useful for "cross-country comparison". Rather amusing to me, to be honest.--Huaiwei 20:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
It's amusing to you largely because your own definition of "country" overlaps with "sovereign States", which is not the same as in common usage or on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 20:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
What amuses me is not how a country is defined. Its how you could compare the "military" of a country's part with the whole of another. Good luck to you if you are a military commander. Meanwhile, the over-welmingly popular definition of the word "country" is a soverign state despite its technical inaccuracies, and not the other way round that you claim.--Huaiwei 20:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I've never suggested to compare the military of the PRC to that of Hong Kong. Cross-country comparison can be a whatever country, no matter a sovereign State or not, to another. — Instantnood 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
So, 'Nood, are you proclaiming HK is a country since you're objecting to the implication that HK is not a country? SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Guess you are aware of the definition of "country" in common usage, and the list of countries on Wikipedia. Meanwhile I have never proclaimed Hong Kong as a sovereign State. — Instantnood 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
(response to Huaiwei's comment at 16:12, July 11) I know military service is compulsory in your home country :-D. Do you really think the PRC would actually shift its entire military focus onto Hong Kong of Hong Kong is under attack? — Instantnood 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The military of Hong Kong does not exist. Therefore, the article should not exist. However, there is a Military in Hong Kong and that is synonymous with the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. There's no need to seperate the fictional "Military of Hong Kong" from the "PLA Hong Kong Garrison". There are no other militaries in Hong Kong. For comparison, "Military of Israel" redirects to "Israel Defense Forces" and "Military of the United Kingdom" redirects to "British Armed Forces". Other articles on non-existent militaries, such as the Military of Wake Island, have already been deleted and redirected...--Jiang 13:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Jiang. I noticed some countries have only a military article (e.g. Military of New Zealand) and some have only an article on the armed force (e.g. Canadian Armed Forces, Australian Defence Force) while some have both (e.g. Military of Singapore and Singapore Armed Forces). Is there any guidelines or WikiProject standardising how these articles should be organised? — Instantnood 14:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
The wikiproject is silent on this issue. Convention, as far as I am aware of it, calls for a single article with a redirect to the most common term for the armed forces. This means if "Armed Forces" is a more common term, we use it instead of "Military". (Military of Canada is a redirect.) The Singapore example is the first I've seen and I really think those two articles should be merged. Looking at both, I don't see how theyre designed to cover different scopes. The "Military of Singapore" article even begins with "The Singapore Armed Forces"! --Jiang 15:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I see.. I won't object merging if it is a convention to have single articles. The military history of Hong Kong can be a separate article in that case. — Instantnood 16:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, this article does a decent job of explaining to the reader that Hong Kong doesn't have a military of it's own. That needs explaining if the reader was searching for information about Hong Kong's military. If this becomes a redirect to the PLA garrison, that point of fact needs to be explicit. SchmuckyTheCat 18:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Some countries, even sovereign States, do not have military of their own, but there are military articles telling what forces are stationed there, and/or other information about their military aspects (e.g. military of Greenland, military of Aruba, military of Costa Rica, military of Kiribati, military of Iceland). If the two articles are merged the fact needs to be stated. — Instantnood 07:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have to point out that it is apparant the entire Military of foo series of articles started off by taking data from the CIA factbook. This was also the case for many other Foo of country/territory articles. It is therefore not surprising that Iceland or quasi-independent territories are getting their seperate entries. But is CIA a definitive source to rely on when justifying the subsequent existance of articles when they are reviewed and expanded on? I think not. Telling us that "Military of Greenland" exists does not mean it is equally justifiable to have "Military of Macau".--Huaiwei 16:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Mind telling if Costa Rica and Kiribati are quasi-independent territories according to your definition? Thanks. — Instantnood 20:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
No they are independent states like Iceland. Do I have to mention them all least you think they fall into the later category? Seriously, are you trying to be intentionally irritable?--Huaiwei 20:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Just be careful to avoid anything that might look confusing. — Instantnood 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


I guess it would be nice to continue the discussion here at the talk page of the military WikiProject (or equivalent). The matter is not only Hong Kong-related, but also related to countries which are not sovereign states, and sovereign states with no military force. — Instantnood 20:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)