Talk:Singapore International School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Hong Kong, China" in the Basic Law[edit]

(Transferred from User talk:Vsion) Perhaps you'd be interested to take a look at how the use of "Hong Kong, China" is prescribed in the Basic Law: Article 116, Article 149, Article 151. :-D — Instantnood 12:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I already read the Basic Law several weeks ago, when I was researching for the "dependent territory" thing; and I was refering exactly to article 151 when I wrote that edit summary. Let's look at article 151:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may on its own, using the name "Hong Kong, China", maintain and develop relations and conclude and implement agreements with foreign states and regions and relevant international organizations in the appropriate fields, including the economic, trade, financial and monetary, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural and sports fields.

To rephrase the sentence, it means that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may on its own maintain and develop relations ... blah blah blah ... , using the name "Hong Kong, China". Therefore in international arena, the name "Hong Kong, China" should be used. As there are different personal preferences, I think we should just follow what the Basic Law says. --Vsion 12:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Basic Law does not prescribe how Hong Kong should be presented " in international arena " other than those mentioned. It's not common for Hong Kong being written as "Hong Kong, China" on lists of countries, say economic indices compiled by rating agencies. — Instantnood 13:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The article does not need to list every single possible usage on planet Earth to underscore its point. Usage in the "international arena" speaks for itself. Contrary to what you claim, it is increasingly common for "Hong Kong, China" to appear in country lists, and has been so in the vast majority of publications by the United Nations. More and more private publishers are beginning to adopt this convention. Meanwhile, I dont think this particular page is a country list, or an economic index?--Huaiwei 13:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instantnood, I'm having a hard time understanding why you ask me to read the Basic Law, and yet you yourself did not abide by it with this edit [1], oh please ... --Vsion 13:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Basic Law does not prescribe it has to be written in this way, other than under the situations stated. — Instantnood 14:18, September 12, 2005 (UTC) (modified 08:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
(response to Huaiwei's comment at 13:37, September 12) A Google test gives only two hits by searching with "Hong Kong, China", but 41 with "Hong Kong" -China on site:un.int, and 569 and 10 600 on site:un.org. :-)
The convention is not even getting more popular in Hong Kong over the past few years, say, on tables and lists on local newspapers. Even the government is not writing addresses ending with "Hong Kong, China" or "Hong Kong, People's Republic of China" on its website. It simply writes "Hong Kong". Sometimes I do wonder if the letters have been wandered in mainland China when I received letters from foreign countries with my address ended with "Hong Kong, China". — Instantnood 14:18, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I do hope you relise you are not talking to 3 year olds here. A google search is not going to reveal how the term is used in publications by the United Nations, nor is it going to accurately reflect how many economic indices use it. I challenge you to list us ALL publications by the UN which lists Hong Kong as such in tables or country lists. And did we say country lists and tables? Precisely. Why do you now mention sentences writern by your local government? Obviously we do not refer to full names of places all the time in all sentences, do we? Do you labourously spell United States of America or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in all your sentences? Conversely, do the very first sentence in serious texts (which excludes newspapers) use "the states" to refer to the US? So you say its not getting more popular in HK. As I would expect. HK would probably be the last place on the planet to willingly call itself HK, China. It is obvious I am refering to global usage here, so why would we base our deductions on usage by your local media or government?--Huaiwei 14:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the UN non-sovereign territories are represented by the corresponding sovereign states for only sovereign states are members. " As I would expect. HK would probably be the last place on the planet to willingly call itself HK, China. " If you know how many local newspapers are controlled by pro-Beijing businessmen you wouldn't have made such comment. — Instantnood 15:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
And under which organisation are the laws governing the creation and status of the SARs filed with? The United Nations. Who is arguably the most nuetral party in the world today who can have a final say on the political status of political entities? The United Nations. Who produces one of the most balanced and respected publications on the world today, not just on its own members? The United Nations. Who would deny the reliability of United Nation's publications and the way it names political entities which are its members? Instantnood.
I will still make that statement irrespective of who controls the HK media. The fact is I didnt specify the HK media, but of HK itself, especially if we were to go by comments made by yourself about how "relunctant" HKers are in caling their city a Chinese city. I have already said newspapers are not a good guage, for I have noticed them rewording even quoted sources for their own usage. Something that was once "Hong Kong, China" in an original statistical table appears without the word "China" when reprinted in a newspaper, and that happens for many other entities as well simply because newspapers tend to be succint as far as they can. Do an encyclopedia adopt such a writing policy and style, thou?--Huaiwei 16:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the followings: Index of Economic Freedom by Heritage Foundation/The Wall Street Journal, World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005 by IMD International, Press Freedom Index 2004 by Reporters without borders, Worldwide quality-of-life index, 2005 by The Economist and Corruption Perceptions Index 2004 by Transparency International. — Instantnood 17:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Lets also look at:
There is no free online access, but statistical tables in publications by the International Civil Aviation Organization similarly use Hong Kong, China.--Huaiwei 18:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All except Freedom House you have cited are international organisations. Hong Kong is member of the WTO and IOC, under the name "Hong Kong, China" as required by the Basic Law. For the UN, the ICAO and the ITU, only sovereign states are admitted as members (note they use "member states"), and for the World Bank, all members except the West Bank and Gaza and the EU are sovereign states. Names of dependent territories are written according to the sovereign states representing their interests. In the Freedom House report non-sovereign states are separately listed. Puerto Rico is written with United States too. The Basic Law only states "Hong Kong, China" should be used under circumstances such as joining international organisations. It does not tell what should be done in general usage, such as the rankings that I've mentioned above. — Instantnood 21:03, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The law dosent dictate how international organisations should name terroritories in their publications either, so what gives? Like it or not, statistics and tables by international organisations are still statistics and tables, and their usage is not decreasing, but increasing. You can continue to quote sources which write Hong Kong, but how does that counter the suggestion that "Hong Kong, China" is increasingly seen in statistical lists and lists of countries? And if we may relate the discussion back to this page, how many of those sources you list fail to mention that Hong Kong is a part of China in their country/territory profiles or supporting texts? Why should this particular article, which you bother to list every sub-location it belongs to, suddenly stop short at HK, as thou HK is the top-level political entity? Should it also fail to mention that this school is located in the PRC together with two other schools there?--Huaiwei 21:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The law prescribes under what name Hong Kong should join these international organisations, and statistics and tables by these organisations naturally use the names of its members. For organisations which members are restricted to sovereign states, they use the names prefer by its members representing the interests of the dependent territories. And frankly you failed to show an increasing trend. Those you quoted started to list Hong Kong as "Hong Kong, China" shortly after the transfer of sovereignty. — Instantnood 06:02, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
As you said, the Basic Law prescribes that the name "Hong Kong, China" should be used in international organisations, (and for agreements, etc). There is no reason why the naming convention should be different for other purposes in international arena, and wikipedia is for International readers, and this article is on "Singapore International school". As an official policy on the naming convention, the Basic Law definitely carries much stronger weight compared to those lists you provided. Why should we follow the example of Transparency International, but not the policy of Basic Law? Furthermore, it provides the information that Hong Kong is part of China, which is useful because, according to one hk-wikipedian and I concur with, many westerners still do not know this fact. You may not like it personally (and I don't know why), but please bear with it. --Vsion 06:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mind telling for what reasons do you think why the Hong Kong Government is not writing addresses of its premises with the ending "Hong Kong, China"? — Instantnood 07:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because after 150 years as a dependent territory of the British Empire, postal workers around the world are so used to just seeing "Hong Kong", that if you write "Hong Kong, China", they might be confused and send it to mainland China instead. This is just my guess, and that's a good question! --Vsion 07:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good guess. But then "Hong Kong, China" is printed on stamps, for Hong Kong is an associate member of UPU under the name "Hong Kong, China". :-D In fact although Hong Kong's sovereignty is held by the PRC, given its special status I don't think there's any problem to present it as a top-level entity, as long as it is not presented as a sovereign state. — Instantnood 08:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see, it's all about this "top-level entity" thing. I read the other parts of Basic Law and am aware of what this special status is. To me, there is no problem with presenting as a top-level entity (with some exceptions as you mentioned and for defence and foreign relation), as long as it follows the naming convention and does not introduce wrong or misleading statement. Then, using "Hong Kong, China" instead of "Hong Kong, China" seems acceptable to me, with "Hong Kong, China" as the top entity instead of "China", while still abiding by the naming convention. How does this goes with you? --Vsion 08:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese), or the Basic Law? — Instantnood 08:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the details of the former. I'm referring to the Basic Law as well as the usage by the Hong Kong Government and the international organisations, etc., and the information-factor mentioned above. --Vsion 09:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Hong Kong Government (and its related organisations and agencies) does not use "Hong Kong, China", for instance, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The reasons why "Hong Kong, China" is used by international organisations, as mentioned, is because Hong Kong is member under the name "Hong Kong, China" as required by the Basic Law, or its interests is represented by the PRC. — Instantnood 09:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant. The Hong Kong Govt., even with the high autonomy, does follow the Basic Law set by the PRC (after consultation with the British and Hong Kong representative, I suppose). There is no controversy at all, it is the naming convention acceptable to all sides, the PRC and the HK SAR government which I assume represents the Hong Kong people. And there are 27,000 gov.hk sites that uses "Hong Kong, China" [7] --Vsion 09:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the examples I mentioned the Government is not using "Hong Kong, China" other than the situations stated in the Basic Law. As for the number of sites there are 2 730 000 websites on site:gov.hk by searching with "Hong Kong -China" (btw, try look for "Hong Kong, China" in the first few pages of the 27 000). :-D And I guess you may not be very familiar with how the Basic Law was drafted. — Instantnood 10:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I said about the Basic Law. And surely you know that HK SAR government uses "Hong Kong, China" in situations other than stated in the Basic Law. [8]. --Vsion 10:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason why we dont write "China" at the end of HK addresses is simply because of the basic law itself. As far as possible, it aims to maintain the staus quo in the everyday lives and functions of HKers, and this is just one facet of that in play. And why this? So that China can get HK back in its fold on its own terms. I therefore find it irritating (or even amusing) when some individuals like instantnood assumes others are 3 year olds and think they can play up the issue beyond what they actually mean in essence.--Huaiwei 09:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Singapore International School (Hong Kong).png[edit]

Image:Singapore International School (Hong Kong).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Datings[edit]

This whole article is very outdated, I would guess about 10 years or so. The pictures are old, the facilities there have all been updated once, or even twice! Also, the school celebrated its 25th anniversary 5 years ago, and this article still has not said anything about it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore_International_School&oldid=1210340017"