Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OckRaz (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 22 July 2023 (→‎Request for comment: British Hong Kong or Hong Kong?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WikiProject iconHong Kong Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

Collaboration needed

Improvement needed

Cleanup needed

Image needed (347)

Destub needed

Deorphan needed

Page creation needed

Miscellaneous tasks

Asian Australians WikiProject

Hi,

I am looking for members to join WikiProject Council/Proposals/Asian Australians.

I figured that some members of WikiProject Hong Kong might want to help contribute to the proposed WikiProject.

Let me know if you are interested!

Thanks, AverageFraud (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment for Hong Kong or Hong Kong, China?

Recently, I edited some articles relating to the “place of birth” column in the info box which should type whether “Hong Kong” or “Hong Kong, China” for people born in Hong Kong after 1997. This RfC is to desire whether should add “China” or not.—Billytanghh (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For people info box, it is suggested that the country be a sovereign state and its name unlinked. Senorangel (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I preferred Hong Kong only, as Mainland China and Hong Kong are two different jurisdictions, something which are the same as British Overseas Territory (like what Hong Kong did before 1997) or a nation under the Kingdom of the Netherlands (such as Aruba or Curaçao). you would not add the UK or the Netherlands after them.—Billytanghh (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained it to you on your talk page the difference between BOTs/Aruba and Hong Kong. [1] You have ignored it [2] and continued so I am once again explaining to you that British Overseas Territories are not part of the UK.
Hong Kong was a crown colony, after 1981 British Dependent Territory, not a BOT.
I have provided you with plenty of WP:RS that call Hong Kong a Chinese city or Chinese territory. As seen here [3]
It is universally recognised to be a part of China, Hong Kong doesn't claim otherwise nor does any other country.
Chapter 1 Article 1 of the Hong Kong Basic Law constitutionally defines HK as an “inalienable part of the PRC”.[4]
Trying to forcefully remove the country from every infobox birthplace of people born *after* the 1997 handover to China just screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT Andro611 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (invited by the bot) Just say "Hong Kong" People know what that is. No need for the complexities of trying to add anything. Including to serve other objectives/preferences such as wanting to emphasize or de-emphasize that it is a part of China. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d say that if China is included, use “Hong Kong SAR, China” (or the full form Special Administrative Region) because of the separate jurisdiction stuff like what Billytanghh said. If in the end it is “Hong Kong” only, don’t add the SAR since it might feel out of place. SBS6577P (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support relevant sovereign state Per my reply and Laurel Lodged's arguments. Pre-1997 use British Hong Kong, post-1997 use Hong Kong, China. This is common sense.
Andro611 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This RfC would benefit from broader community participation as it will affect numerous articles of everyone born in Hong Kong after the Handover of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997. I made notification posts at Template:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If there other good places to advertise this discussion, I would appreciate if editors would do so.

    The current RfC applies only to biographies but it may make sense to formulate a broader guideline for non-biographies too (either by broadening the scope of this RfC or as part of a new RfC after this RfC is closed). I've seen disagreement across a broad set of articles (including here for a biography, here for a city, and here for a television channel) about what wording to use.

    Once a consensus is reached, the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles can be updated with what wording to use.

    Cunard (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Is seems standard to include a state (or wider polity of some kind) in these infoboxes. Margaret Murray has "Calcutta, British India" and Mark Rutte has "The Hague, Netherlands". Where has the dispute over Hong Kong emerged, and why should it be treated differently? CMD (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your question about where this dispute emerged it appears that Billytanghh's disagreement with me started this.
    Me on Billytanghh's talk page: [5] (in response to edits on a geographic part of Hong Kong the day before)
    Here is my edit [6] for Anson Lo who was born during British rule there, no one seems to be opposing that. The case Billytanghh is making is based on a false equivalence between BOTs such as Gibraltar (which are constitutionally not part of the UK, so we aren't adding “UK” to the infoboxes of Gibraltarians) and present-day Hong Kong (which is constitutionally part of the PRC).
    Hope that helps. Andro611 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include the larger polity. There has been nothing persuasive here to explain why we should treat Hong Kong the same way we treat virtually every other city on earth. The supposed similar examples of global cities, like Paris, include the larger polity. The concerns of potential politicisation are misguided, treating Hong Kong the same as everywhere else would be the neutral default. CMD (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can be added, but may not be necessary as Hong Kong is so well known that specifying the country is less needed. It is not worth going through all biographies to make changes, but it can be preferred for GA or FA quality articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe Hong Kong is still autonomous enough to stand on its own. If this passes, we would also need to review Macau. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox documentation says that the pattern is (city, administrative region, country). The HKSAR presumably isn’t autonomous to amount to a country (cf Taiwan), so it’s a (putatively quite autonomous) administrative region/city, so there’s no problem in pointing out that the country is China. Docentation (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Hong Kong. There are maybe 20-some-odd cities where it's unnecessary to add the polity, and it's just annoying clutter. I believe we say just "Paris" and not "Paris, France". If the reader doesn't know where Paris is, she probably doesn't know where or what France is, and many other things such that it'll be hard for her to get much out of the encyclopedia generally. New York City, London, same... and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is an A+ global city (there are nine) and is one of the very most famous cities in the world. There are a lot of cities on the margins where it could be argued either way. Hong Kong is notI one. Avoid the clutter and the political arguing. Herostratus (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if there is an explicit convention these contravene, but Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy say "Paris, France". CMD (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Always? Why? Other people don't do that. Kamela Harris doesn't say "I've just returned from Los Angeles, United States" or "Los Angeles, America". Well, I can't account for idiosyncratic French politicians. I doubt there's a rule about this (might be an essay) because there's a continuum and not a sharp line. How do you handle Milan, Barcelona, Shenzhen, Lagos? I don't know. But I do know how to handle Hong Kong. Herostratus (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the infoboxes on those articles have that formulation. Sadiq Khan's article has "Tooting, London, England", and Al Gore's article has "Washington, D.C., U.S." CMD (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note however that Sadiq Khan's article does not say, "Tootling, London, England, United Kingdom", which is the name of the relevant sovereign state. We say (for example) that Bruce Lee died in Kowloon, British Hong Kong and that Ellen Joyce Loo died in Happy Valley, Hong Kong. Likewise I don't see a reason to simply say "Hong Kong, China" more broadly; Hong Kong (like England, or also more aptly like Wales; see: Ernest Zobole) is sufficiently recognizable and concrete that we need not mandate that all articles go further. Just like the U.K. example, I think it would be better to not WP:CREEP into this by mandating one style. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The U.K. example is the product of decades of on-wiki drama. This is not a strong case, and equating Hong Kong to England when London is literally next to England in the example seems to be a very deep stretch. CMD (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what reliable sources do - And I don't believe they say, generally speaking, "Hong Kong, China". FOARP (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per FOARP and Herostratus. The specification is not required as Hong Kong is a recognizable enough entity without needing to elaborate on the current political situation. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just point to Template:Infobox person where it's asked to include country or sovereign state in the person infobox. In this case it is China, as multiple WP:RS indicate. Stating this is not “elaboration on the current political situation”, it's what is commonly done for all cities including those with considerable autonomy. Best regards, Andro611 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do follow sources for material, but not for style. Of a preponderance of our sources say "October 3rd, 1823" we don't follow that because we don't do dates that way. If most infoboxen are like "New York City, United States" people should stop doing that, it probably distracts and annoys more readers than it helps. "Stuttgart, Germany", yes. "Berlin, Germany", no. I mean we don't have "Rochelle, France, Europe" or whatever. Where's the cutoff? For Paris its "Paris". For Hong Kong its "Hong Kong". Herostratus (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a wikipedia template for wikipedia style. And for the record we do write ”New York, US” as seen here.
    Read the template. Europe is not mentioned with La Rochelle because Europe is not the sovereign state. France is. Andro611 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comment above. At best, this is instruction creep, and it's inconsistent with how we handle place names for places like Wales and Northern Ireland that have special administrative statuses within a larger sovereign unitary state. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Hong Kong people know what Hong Kong is. As a general practice, we don't say that certain places are in certain countries, because it is such common knowledge. Specifying something like "Texas, United States" would be insulting to our readers, unless the context was unclear, because it is general knowledge that Texas is in the United States. On the off chance readers don't know that, they can of course follow the link to Hong Kong and read up on it. But to specify it is in China is simply unnecessary. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general practice, we do say this. Greg Abbott was born in "Wichita Falls, Texas, U.S.". CMD (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well let's not. It looks silly and is annoying. Herostratus (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why this reply is here, but perhaps it's worth raising that the place to change the general format of these infoboxes is probably not at this Wikiproject. CMD (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose. But if general practice is to annoy the reader, the best place to start is for people to make that not be general practice. We don't really need permission for that. So we could start here I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hong Kong only It is well understood that Hong Kong is a Chinese SAR, the "China" does not help disambiguate between Hong Kong and Hong Kong, China since they refer to the same entity. Per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME, I see no grounds for a change. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Hong Kong sounds very wrong. And an unnecessary disambiguation, given the context is clear from the year, and there's been no territorial changes (unlike British India). There's lots of other places this could apply to. Like British British Columbia, or perhaps more comparably British British Columbia. Nfitz (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, also agree on that. There is a very strong tendency in some areas of Wikipedia to simply invent new names for things and then those names become somehow "official" on here. "British Hong Kong" just isn't a thing, nor was it pre-1997. It was always just Hong Kong. Yes I know our article is called that, but that was an editor-created title. FOARP (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Red-tailed hawk. Regardless of the Hong Kong national security law reducing the territory's autonomy, it clearly maintains more autonomy than mainland Chinese cities or US states. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Hong Kong. People know where it is. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should ALWAYS include the sovereign state in these situations

--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post-1997: Hong Kong SAR, China
Pre-1997: British Hong Kong
The controlling entity at the time of the person's birth has generally always been listed in the infobox. This is particularly relevant to countries that have a history of being occupied, such as Korea; cf. Kim Yong-Nam, Park Chung-hee. Hong Kong has never been independent and shows no serious indications of it being independent.
There has not been very convincing reasoning as to why Hong Kong should be treated any differently. Even if it was an independent city-state, any existing infoboxes should be disambiguated further such as was done in Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès. Hong Kong by itself should never be an acceptable entry in an infobox just as we don't put London by itself in the infobox. Both are controlled by a governing entity. Mfko (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • just Hong Kong. Unlike US states, or "countries" of Britain, being born in Hong Kong does not automatically give you Chinese citizenship, or (pre 1997) British. People born in Hong Kong are citizens of Hong Kong, independent of any right they may have to Chinese or British citizenship. Nothing changed in 1997 with respect to this. In particular HK citizens didn't suddenly lose British citizenship, or gain Chinese, as such additions would imply.--92.40.36.74 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is false. People born in Hong Kong are Chinese nationals per Chinese Nationality Law. See 1. & 2. here Andro611 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a HK resident "of Chinese descent" or who "satisfies the criteria ... for having Chinese nationality". Which is how it's been for a while – China's nationality law accepts anyone of Chinese descent as Chinese, as long as they haven't become a citizen of another country (which means giving up Chinese citizenship, as China does not recognise dual nationality). At the same time a HK resident may have a right to British citizenship, from a prior relationship, or due to schemes extending visas and citizenship to HK residents before and after 1997. --92.40.36.74 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Hong Kong. The only common usage for "Hong Kong, China" is in sports competition. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow both. If current policy says we need to include the country for cities like Paris or New York, I'd push back against it, because that's in my opinion a net negative. It's also not worth saying those cities have to not include the country – too much work for not really any gain, both styles can be acceptable. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: British Hong Kong or Hong Kong?

For people born in Hong Kong between 1841 and 1997, should the "place of birth" column say "British Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong"? If there is consensus for a particular approach in either or both of the pre-1997 and post-1997 cases, should the community create a bot request to modify all affected articles to comply with the new guidance? Cunard (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here is background from Hong Kong:

    Hong Kong had been a colony of the British Empire since 1841, except for four years of Japanese occupation from 1941 to 1945. After the First Opium War, its territory was expanded on two occasions; in 1860 with the addition of Kowloon Peninsula and Stonecutters Island, and again in 1898, when Britain obtained a 99-year lease for the New Territories. The date of the handover in 1997 marked the end of this lease.

    Nfitz (talk · contribs) wrote above: "British Hong Kong sounds very wrong. And an unnecessary disambiguation, given the context is clear from the year, and there's been no territorial changes (unlike British India). There's lots of other places this could apply to. Like British British Columbia, or perhaps more comparably British British Columbia."

    And FOARP (talk · contribs) wrote in response, "Yeah, also agree on that. There is a very strong tendency in some areas of Wikipedia to simply invent new names for things and then those names become somehow "official" on here. "British Hong Kong" just isn't a thing, nor was it pre-1997. It was always just Hong Kong. Yes I know our article is called that, but that was an editor-created title."

    There is an emerging consensus in the above RfC that for people born in Hong Kong after 1997, the infobox should say "Hong Kong" instead of "Hong Kong, China". There are numerous articles of people born before 1997 who have infoboxes that say "British Hong Kong" instead of "Hong Kong". Of the four Chief Executives of Hong Kong not born in mainland China, John Lee Ka-chiu and Carrie Lam say British Hong Kong, while Leung Chun-ying and Donald Tsang say Hong Kong. I've created articles like Terence Lam, who was born in 1991, that say "British Hong Kong" in the infobox because I've seen other articles say that. The community should decide what to say in the pre-1997 case just like the post-1997 case at #Request for comment for Hong Kong or Hong Kong, China?.

    After this RfC is closed, I recommend updating Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles (maybe in a new "Hong Kong" section) with guidance about what to do in these two cases. If there is consensus for a particular approach, should the community create a bot request to modify all affected articles to comply with the new guidance?

    Cunard (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • just Hong Kong. I was including this in my comments above but will add it here for clarity. Again, whether A HK resident is born before or after 1997 does not affect their right to Chinese or British citizenship. "British Hong Kong" is especially problematic as HK wasn't known as that, it wasn't a nationality you could have then or can have now. --92.40.36.74 (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • just Hong Kong. My wife was born in Hong Kong well before 1997. Her birth certificate was issued by the "Births and Deaths Registry, Hong Kong". Her BDTC passport (British Dependant Territories Citizen, a nearly worthless British document that did not give her right of entry into Britain) listed her place of birth as "Hong Kong", her nationality as "British National (Overseas)" and had a banner saying "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" at the top of the page. Her HKSAR passport lists her birth place as "Hong Kong" but has a banner saying "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China" at the top of the page. She was a natural born citizen of Hong Kong before the handover and remained a natural born citizen of Hong Kong after the handover. I don't believe anybody makes a distinction between Hong Kong nationality based on their birth year being before or after July 1997. Possible exception would be that the BDTC passport could no longer be issued for Hong Kong citizens after July 1997. I remember there being a such massive rush at the passport offices to get one in the last year before handover that it made it hard for me to book an appointment to extend my residency visa. When returning to visit relatives, our family passports have entry/exit stamps that just say "Hong Kong" with no mention of "China". Entry/exit stamps into mainland China have "China" in both Chinese and English at the top. Our visa to entry mainland China (ie, cross over into Guangdong province) has the Chinese characters for "Chinese People's Republic" at the top and says it was issued at Hong Kong (using 2 Chinese characters 香港, not English). As said by many others, it is a unique and well known name that needs no clumsy qualifier. Addressing it's status, it belongs to China as a special administration region. - no question. Whether that means it is part of China the country as opposed to be simply belonging to China could be open to question. Perhaps Jersey would be a good comparison - part of the British Isles, not part of the UK, but still a British crown dependency (aka territory). I remember Hong Kong often being called the "Territory of Hong Kong" - which allows it to have its own laws, currency, etc but these could be overridden by the British government. Similar for HK with the 1 country, 2 systems Basic Law that allows HK to have its own laws, currency, etc separate from normal Chinese law but these could be overridden by the Chinese government.  Stepho  talk  11:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your comparison to Jersey, there is one key difference. Hong Kong is constitutionally defined as an inalienable part of China.[7] It is fully integrated into the sovereign political entity known as the PRC. That does not stop it from having fiscal, judicial etc autonomy. In its most fundamental document it implicitly rejects the notion of being ruled by China. Hong Kong is not in real union with China, it is a part of China itself. Same goes for Macau. Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this feels like WP:CREEP. If we're going to enforce a particular preference, [[British Hong Kong|Hong Kong]] would be my personal one, but I don't think that we need to enforce one over the other as a matter of MOS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, because I think that we should not mandate a style, I oppose a bot to go in and automanually replace everything. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid the wp:creep of specifying it in an RFC. But on individual cases I would generally weigh in as "just Hong Kong" North8000 (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Hong Kong. We have used it more often than not and it is a useful indicator of the historical context of Hong Kong being ruled by the UK, but not being a part of it. It also reflects how Hong Kong was never a self-governing dominion like Australia or Canada and that is certainly important to stress in the case of for example biographies of politicians and/or activists in 20th century Hong Kong.
Andro611 (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong&oldid=1166589749"