Talk:Hong Kong

HK's Gini

Is over 50. 1/5 of the population are living in poverty. HKers are too proud to accept the fact? http://www.indexmundi.com/hong_kong/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-29/hong-kong-poverty-line-shows-wealth-gap-with-one-in-five-poor.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/world/cramped-living-in-hong-kong-20131015-2vk46.html (with pics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.97.158 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"A pedestrian stops to give money to a homeless man in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, rose to 0.537 in 2011 from 0.525 in 2001, the government said last June." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.97.158 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

5 Big Clans

In this article it states the 4 big clans. This is wrong and it is written in history there are 5 big clans. Which are: Tang, HAU, Liu, Man and Pang. This is mistake needs to be rectified. Poorly written History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.65.17 (talk • contribs) 2010-06-27T21:56:16

Border

The border had several minor changes bcos of the course of the two rivers. The maritime boundaries had also some changes as a result of negotiations in the 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hong Kong/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This orange-tagged article clearly fails criteria 2b. There are many paragraphs lacking citations. I brought this issue up at the talk page a while ago, but there doesn't seem to be much interest.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep All paragraphs now properly cited, found deadlinks had been replaced or removed. ThisAvatar (discuss–?) 06:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice job. The article looks good now, but I'll keep this GAR open for a week in case others want to comment.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep There were many unwanted contents but I can see most of them have been removed and I believe all of the paragraphs are now properly cited. Further work needs to be done but it should now be allowed to retain its status as a good article. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Result: Keep
The issues that led to this GAR have been resolved.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Forbidden User (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

According to the Basic Law, particularly in Articles 116, 125, 149, 151, 152 and Instrument 8, this region is to be referred to as Hong Kong, China in international contexts. In the British colonial era, Hong Kong was not required to prefix or suffix its name with British. Therefore, this page should be moved to Hong Kong, China and British Hong Kong should be moved to Hong Kong.

Name	Remarks	Recommendations
Hong Kong, China	Required by the Basic Law	To be the new placeholder of the current content of Hong Kong
British Hong Kong	Not canonical, and historically non-existent	Contents to be moved to Hong Kong and page to be deleted
Hong Kong	The name used in the British colonial era without hesitation nor requirements or whatsoever. The Basic Law requires Hong Kong to be suffixed with China.	To be the new placeholder of the current content of British Hong Kong

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Edited minor by Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC) for a typo.

Refer to WP:COMMONNAME. United Kingdom is not titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ottawa is not titled Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, etc. Citobun (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep it where it is per WP:COMMONNAME. British Hong Kong is a valid historical topic.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concept of common names. I would also refer to Precision. Hong Kong alone may be a common reference to both Hong Kong, China and Hong Kong in the colonial era. Also, in Where there is an official name that is not the article title, it is required to use the official name in both the leading paragraph and a redirect. Hong Kong is an official name good enough to refer to Hong Kong in the colonial era, while Hong Kong, China is the one and only allowable short form of the official name.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Hong Kong" is the common name for Hong Kong SAR of PRC. STSC (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly, this new user hasn't read WP:COMMONNAME. We use the most understood name for page titles. Forbidden User (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Look at WP:COMMONNAME. What official names are used is irrelevant to Wikipeida's naming conventions. With regards to Joshua.yathin.yu comments on precision you clearly didn't read that page. 'Hong Kong' sufficiently precice where as 'Hong Kong, China' would be overly presice just as in the example in the guideline, "Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise". Read WP:Primary Topic. The article British Hong Kong is not the primary here and in fact, nor would be 'Hong Kong, China' either. The current article is about Hong Kong running from 39,000 years ago to the present. It covers Pre-colonial, colonial (both British and Japanese) and Hong Kong SAR. The article 'Hong Kong, China' could not be the current 'Hong Kong' article. Large parts of the current article would need to be cut such that only post 1997 events are included. Currently there is no article coving post 1997 Hong Kong exclusively. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Hong Kong" is the common name for Hong Kong SAR of PRC. The term "Hong Kong, China" (and variations) is used only in international organizations such as the ADB, the WTO and Interpol. It is specifically designed to allow Beijing to win acceptance for similar terms applying to Taiwan ("Taiwan, Province of China" is most common). Anyone who doesn't know that Hong Kong means that place in China probably needs to do a lot more reading before editing Wikipedia. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there's no talking through this if no one is responding to Hong Kong being a common name for British Hong Kong. Rincewind42 claimed that this particular article was meant for the geographic location from the beginning of history up until now. But the disambiguation suggests otherwise: This article is about the special administrative region of China. And the Infobox also begins with the current official name of the government, which doesn't back up the claim very much.

Perhaps, if I am to assume that the matter is to be stalled here, there's still something about the Infobox to work with. If the Infobox tells of the official name, perhaps should there be some mentioning in the beginning paragraph of the official names? That's what I'd probably write:

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Traditional Chinese: 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區, see Name section), alternatively Hong Kong, China or its initials H.K., formerly simply Hong Kong, is a former British Colony and is currently a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Prescribed by law, it is to be called Hong Kong, China but allowed to be referred to as simply Hong Kong in the past under the British rule.

Perhaps I should state my intention as well: I am hoping to see that the article reflects the fact that Hong Kong is allowed to be called as be while under the British rule as they did not state in laws or whatsoever to prefix or suffix anything British to the name of Hong Kong. After the Chinese occupation, there are laws that require Hong Kong to be suffixed by China in all international contexts. If naming is not a solution, perhaps someone could suggest something else?

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Joshua.yathin.yu look at Wikipedia:Broad concept articles. This article is not solely about a political entity. It discusses history, culture, government, sport, economics and climate along the same ilk as any other country/province/city article you care to look at. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Rincewind42. I'm from Hong Kong as well, and I know what you are talking about. It has been mentioned in the infobox and in context. Besides, it should be in the article about the HKSAR Basic Law. I will close this discussion as not moved for the fact that consensus is clearly against the move.Forbidden User (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-decision discussions

I could only accept the fate of the request. But I am sure, there will be alternative ways to achieve this:

I am hoping to see that the article reflects the fact that Hong Kong is allowed to be called as be while under the British rule as they did not state in laws or whatsoever to prefix or suffix anything British to the name of Hong Kong. After the Chinese occupation, there are laws that require Hong Kong to be suffixed by China in all international contexts.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The full name of Hong Kong under British rule is "British Crown Colony of Hong Kong". And stop saying "Chinese occupation", and please end your absolutely pointless argument while you still don't understand the concept of "common name" in Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to summarise this.

Official name	Common name
What you think
Hong Kong as a geographic location, from the beginning of history	Hong Kong
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China	Hong Kong, China
British Crown Colony of Hong Kong [1]	British Hong Kong
What I think (perhaps my compatriots as well)
British Crown Colony of Hong Kong	Hong Kong
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China	Hong Kong, China

^ I don't seem to be able to find this particular term in the article. It appears that simply Hong Kong was rather official.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You've had your say Joshua, and the Wikipedia community disagrees with you. There is no point in carrying on trying to persuade people. Please find another article to focus your attention on, there are plenty to choose from. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The history of Hongkong and the Typhoons

There is an amazingly nice article on Hongkong facing the typhoons across history. It could deserve your (project HK) attention. Cheer 2A01:E34:EE77:8050:A5E9:6A96:8E1F:1044 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthem... Seriously?

The info box says that the Anthem of Hong Kong is March of the Volunteers (anthem of the PRC). Is this totally redundant and misleading? Put down the political ideas of whether Hong Kong should be independent or not; currently it is de jure and de facto part of China. Its government is directly under control of Beijing. It is thus by no means an independent sovereign state, not even close to an autonomous country like Greenland or Faroe Islands. Therefore, of course, its "anthem" is the same to that of China. Actually one should not say "the Anthem of Hong Kong" -- it is the anthem of China! How ridiculous to say that "the anthem of Washington D.C. is The Star-Spangled Banner"? If no one objects, I will proceed to delete that info. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't cite The Star Spangled Banner as the "national anthem" of New York (City or State). DOR (HK) (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel the situation is slightly more nuanced than this - Hong Kong is a de jure part of China, but its political and judicial institutions are nominally autonomous. Thus it is not correct to equate HK with a place like New York City; it is more appropriate to compare HK to, say, Bermuda, or Puerto Rico. Hong Kong sends its own team to the Olympics, for example, but New York City certainly does not. In reality Hong Kong's political status is very much ambiguous given the on-going discussions of universal suffrage and the somewhat vague terms that was laid out in the Basic Law on Hong Kong's autonomy, and it is difficult to make analogies to any other political entity in the world except Macau. If Hong Kong wins a gold medal at the Olympics, what anthem is played? Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to be a sovereign state to send Olympic teams. In China, there are two "national" Olympic Committees, one in Beijing, one in Hong Kong; but Macau doesn't have one. Hong Kong's political status is quite clear: it is directly under control of Beijing. A few days, the National People's Congress just issued a decision regarding the format of Hong Kong's 2017 elections. Were Hong Kong's political status not clear, such a decision would be meaningless. The thing is, whether some people in Hong Kong dislike this decision, or how they loathe the communist party, or how they cry on the streets, doesn't change Hong Kong's current political status! Also, it is misleading to compare Hong Kong's with the unincorporated territories of the U.S. like Puerto Rico, or the crown dependencies/oversea territories of U.K. Hong Kong is well-incorporated to China politically, in terms of central government control.

Also, for other non-sovereign states, their national anthem is only recorded when it is different from that of the sovereign state. Hong Kong has no alternative national anthem. Also, if you google "香港国歌" (national anthem of Hong Kong), there is only one relevant result from Hong Kong Front, an independence movement, and this movement only prefers independence after 2047, which is not our point to worry. All other results point to either the anthem of China, or the British anthem. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I found it. Annex III of Hong Kong Basic Law. Direct quote: "The following national laws shall be applied locally with effect from 1 July 1997 by way of promulgation or legislation by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: 1. Resolution on the Capital, Calendar, National Anthem and National Flag of the People's Republic of China". Thus now it is clear that the song is really the anthem of China, NOT the anthem of Hong Kong. I am going to remove that from the infobox. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You should have clicked through to the actual resolution: "3. It is unanimously adopted that before the official national anthem of the People's Republic of China is composed, the March of the Volunteers shall be used as the national anthem." And that is being applied locally, to Hong Kong, as the section of the Basic Law states.

Per Colipon, although Hong Kong is not a sovereign state it has some aspects of a state, and from time to time fulfilling that role requires it to have an anthem. Before 1 July 1997 it was the anthem of the UK (you can hear it around 6:00 in this clip on Youtube: eGsJMDuhKhU), after that it is the Chinese anthem. It's not at all automatic that it's the same: Hong Kong has its own flag, as it had pre-handover. And as it's not automatic it's worth mentioning.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox template is of "country" format, therefore it has the field "national_anthem". It's meant for the national anthem, not the regional anthem. Hong Kong doesn't have it's anthem then it would naturally adopt the national anthem as it's anthem, nothing wrong with that. However, I would also suggest another solution that is to use the infobox for "settlement" format which does not have the "national anthem" field. STSC (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

First, March of the Volunteers was officially adopted as the national anthem at the 5th National People's Congress, 5th Session, on Dec. 4, 1982. So it is not provisional. Second, the flag cannot be compared with the anthem. Every state in the US has its own flag, but I don't know a state that has a "state anthem" or "national anthem". Third, I don't care whether fulfilling international/inter-governmental roles requires Hong Kong to have an anthem or not. The point is, in order to have an anthem, you need some law/regulation stipulating it, or at least the song becomes so symbolic that almost everyone regards it as the anthem. March of the Volunteers was extended to Hong Kong immediately after the hand-over, when it became de jure part of China. It is not chosen by Hong Kong legislature, it is not chosen by the Hong Kong people. The Hong Kong Basic Law was signed in 1984, long before the hand-over. Thus from what point of view did that song become the "anthem of Hong Kong"? 128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If there's demand for a Hong Kong Anthem I'm sure the people can democratically choose one in Hong Kong, but in the absence of a local anthem then the national anthem should be adopted. Not a big deal. March of the Volunteers is a lovely song, I quite like it personally. STSC (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, what is nonsense argument? In the absence of "local anthem", then you should not say it at all! Were your proposal adopted, every province, every city, every town, every village would have had their "local anthem". And every un-married man should cite his country's first lady as his wife? How ridiculous would that be? 128.189.191.60 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically from what I can see you just don't accept the national anthem from the communist mainland China. China is the motherland of Hong Kong; and Hong Kong Chinese should think of the source when they drink water. In my opinion, they should proudly sing the Chinese national anthem every day in the city. Furthermore, as someone has mentioned before that Hong Kong has some characteristics of a country so having an anthem is not out of place at all. STSC (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(1) Where did you sense the point that I don't accept the national anthem of Mainland China? (2) Hong Kong is a city/special administrative region of China. (3) From a legislative view, or from any point of view, there is no such a thing as "national anthem of Hong Kong". And when something doesn't exist, it should not be stated in wikipedia. Please follow logic and material facts, not personal predilection. OK? Also, if you think I'm wrong, please point out where I am wrong. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the national anthem from the infobox. According to Annex III of Hong Kong Basic, March of the Volunteers is really the anthem of China, not the anthem of Hong Kong. See above discussion for details. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You should establish consensus for the change first, but it's still being discussed in the above section.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

Please add the following

"Yellow Ribbon is a symbol of wish for universal suffrage by the people of Hong Kong SAR." 203.85.183.193 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. STSC (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)