Talk:Hong Kong

Archives
Topical archives:
• The capital of Hong Kong (1) (2) (3)
• Official languages (1) (2)
• Dependency status (1)
• Demonym (1)
• Leading sentence (1) (2) (3)
• Trad. or simp. characters (1) (2)
Archives by date:
• 1: Sep 03 – Mar 05	• 6: Jul 06 – Mar 07
• 2: Mar 05 – Aug 05	• 7: Mar 07 – Sep 07
• 3: Aug 05 – Apr 06	• 8: Sep 07 – Mar 08
• 4: Mar 06 – May 06	• 9: Mar 08 – May 09
• 5: May 06 – Jul 06	• 10: May 09 –
About archives • Edit this box

Integration with Shenzhen

The Shenzhen main article has two sections on the integration of Shenzhen with Hong Kong. I mean, it's completely neccessary for HK to compete against world cities like Singapore, Tokyo, London, and Chicago (especially the rapidly rising Shanghai) Shenzhen and HK must become cooperative partners...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen#Integration_with_Hong_Kong

This is also a stated goal between the Shenzhen gov't and HK gov't. They signed a memorandum of understanding for creating a single metropolis, Shenzhen has incorporated plans for merger up until 2020.

I have researched and read every single article on the web on HK-Shenzhen merger (even the various studies proposed by the Bauhinia foundation, China Development Institute, and like a 1993 study on this issue. I was wondering if it is okay if you guys would allow me to proceed to make a world class article section for you within the HK main article.

Phead128 (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's ok if you follow the WP:MOS and WP:Citing sources well. And there's an alternative option, you can write this section in your own sandbox page, for example User:Phead128/sandbox first until you think you've completely refined the passage then you can copy this section into the Hong Kong article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dude. I will do it after I finish my all nighter tonight. lol Phead128 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"it's completely neccessary for HK to compete against world cities like Singapore, Tokyo, London, and Chicago (especially the rapidly rising Shanghai) Shenzhen and HK must become cooperative partners..." Wikipedia's discussion pages are not forums where you discuss your opinions on future events and plans. --Platinum inc (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you come across any HK-shenzhen doc that talks about the merge of traditional chinese back to shenzhen? You must know more than us if you went through every single article on the web. What's an even hotter topic is the pro-party school system merge with an international school system. Benjwong (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger of the "traditional chinese" back to Shenzhen? LOL. Allow Shanghai to have the rule of law, then a synergy between HK and Shenzhen will almost be guaranteed. Especially in light of the Shanghai threat. HK's dominance will continue... It's almost guaranteed. lol Up until 2050 at least...Phead128 (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro, yet again

Dear editors:

Please, let us avoid any more conflicts on this issue about the intro. In the last week there has been two trends:

1. Editors who wish to highlight China's "ownership" of Hong Kong by adding that the "official name" now suggests that HK is now "held" by the PRC.
2. Editors who wish to remove mentions of PRC from the first paragraph.

Neither approach is NPOV. Firstly, Hong Kong is part of the PRC, albeit a relatively autonomous part of it, but still part of the PRC, whether we like to admit it or not. Therefore, as per the consensus we had earlier, PRC should rightfully be included in the intro, as is the standard with every other non-sovereign territory. Secondly, may I respectfully ask editors who insist on inserting "HK is now held by the PRC" to stop doing so, as this is an unecessary assertion and makes the intro look awkward and POV-ridden. The fact that PRC is part of HK's official name is already self-evident, saying it again would be the same as saying "1+1 equals 2 because when you add 1 and 1 together, you get 2".

Another mechanical issue, there is no "The" before "Guangdong province". Colipon+(T) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Just for the record, I am OK with the name People's Republic of China being mention ONCE in the first sentence. But definitely not something like "Hong Kong Special Administration Region People's Republic of China is a territory in People's Republic of China", this is just like putting 7 spoons of sugar in a coffee. I'm indeed OK with the current version, which is:

“ Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China, facing Guangdong province to the north and the South China Sea to the east, west and south. Hong Kong is a global metropolitan and international financial centre, and has a highly developed capitalist economy.

Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a crown colony of the United Kingdom in 1842 and from 1983 onwards a British dependent territories, and remained so until the transfer of its sovereignty to the of the People's Republic of China in 1997. Under the "one country, two systems" policy, Hong Kong enjoys high degree of autonomy in all areas with the exception of foreign affairs and defence (which are the responsibility of the PRC Government). As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong continues to maintain its own currency, separate legal, political systems and other aspects that concern its way of life, many of which are distinct from those of mainland China.

”

--Da Vynci (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I had occassion to look into some of the thoughts on the official name of HK. From what I could find in the agreement between China and the United Kingdom, and what I could find in the Basic Law, it sure looks to me like the full official name is just "Hong Kong Special Administration Region". The term is used over and over, and in the few places where "of the People's Republic of China" was appended, the context was such that it appeared to be merely adding descriptive detail, not being part of the name. I agree that "Hong Kong Special Administration Region People's Republic of China is a territory in People's Republic of China" is a bad opening. I believe a more accurate opening would be "Hong Kong Special Administration Region is a territory in People's Republic of China". Readin (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The opening suggested by Da Vynci above is pretty good. I really like the style of an introductory paragraph that introduces basic concepts with the following paragraphs providing detail. Unfortunately some editors considered id "redundant" and destroyed the style. Readin (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad we were able to come to a consensus on this issue. Can we make it an implicit rule for all the new editors on this article (and perhaps some sockpuppets) to refrain from editing the intro before discussing it?? Colipon+(T) 23:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph cited by talk, as I believe, is indeed the current consensus.--pyl (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What about my change of "transfer to Chinese sovereignty"? This reduces the full name of PRC once (and it shouldn't be wikilinked again and again anyway), and it's obvious what Chinese (or China) means by simply looking in the paragraph above (where PRC already appears and is wikilinked) and follow the "transfer" link. HkCaGu (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Very tempting, but I would rather say no to that. It is because not everything Chinese is PRC. The word Chinese has very vague definition, it may refer to ethnical background, culture, language, custom, etc. Furthermore, PRC is just one of the countries with Chinese identity. If HK was handed over to Republic of China, we can also say "transfer to Chinese sovereignty". The same phrase could be used even HK become independent (just like many many ex-British colonies) as Hongkongers are (almost always) ethnically Chinese. Only the word PRC could exlude all those possible confusion. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever currently is going on, please fix this part.

The word "territory" or its equivalent in the current back and forth is being linked to "List of special territories by international agreement" (or whatever the current name is) and it needs to wikilink to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Nope, there is already a link to Special Administrative Region in the same sentence, so there is no such need to repeat that. On the other hand, the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement is valuable for informative purpose. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather say 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China' is the full official name. 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region' is used frequently, but that is not the full name. Umofomo (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I quote Readin to explain your enquiry:

“ I had occassion to look into some of the thoughts on the official name of HK. From what I could find in the agreement between China and the United Kingdom, and what I could find in the Basic Law, it sure looks to me like the full official name is just "Hong Kong Special Administration Region". The term is used over and over, and in the few places where "of the People's Republic of China" was appended, the context was such that it appeared to be merely adding descriptive detail, not being part of the name. I agree that "Hong Kong Special Administration Region People's Republic of China is a territory in People's Republic of China" is a bad opening. I believe a more accurate opening would be "Hong Kong Special Administration Region is a territory in People's Republic of China". Readin ”

Also, taking example from other article such as London and Sydney, full official names of the countries (e.g. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commonwealth of Australia) don't even appear in opening sentence of the city's article. Even Helsinki (captial of Finland) doesn't mention the name Republic of Finland, and the page Paris also doesn't mention France's full name French Republic. Moreover, the name HKSARPRC is already appear in the title of info box, it think it is more sufficiant then common wikipedia practice. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is perhaps an anomaly. I don't understand why the Communist Party have to affirm its sovereignty by making the full official name of Hong Kong that long and weird. No other sovereign power on Earth would have required its dependent or overseas territories to have such a name. But then if we want to follow the convention on Wikipedia for country articles, we have to include the long-winding full official name in the first line of the article. Umofomo (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your points isn't relevant, this is not a country article. We can discuss your request when Hong Kong become a country. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not too sure if you're a native speaker of English. By saying 'country' I didn't mean to refer merely to sovereign states. Most if not all inhabited dependent territories can be considered countries. The country infobox template, instead of the city or province template, is used for Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Aruba and Puerto Rico. Umofomo (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Umofomo, a daft claim there, that "no other sovereign power on Earth" would append their names on their territories? Ever thought of "Netherlands Antilles", "French Polynesia", "French Guiana", "French West Africa"?? How about "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", purely based on a foreign (Greek) claim? If the Macedonia article can live with that then surely the HK article can live with a long-form name in its infobox. Colipon+(T) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And British Virgin Islands and American Samoa too. But I can't think of any as clumsy as 'Hong Kong (or Macau) Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China'. All those we have mentioned, from French to British, from American to Dutch, the names of the sovereign powers serve chiefly for disambiguation purposes. There were Portuguese Guinea, French Congo, German New Guinea too. Macedonia is a compromise of territorial or perhaps cultural and heritage disputes. That's beyond the matter of sovereignty and colonialism. Umofomo (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting discussion. By the way, Readin, the full official name of HK is the HKSAR of the PRC. It is relatively awkward, and it may not be there for the best reasons, but it is undisputedly HK's official name in its full form after 1997 - otherwise the HK Basic Law would not be titled the Basic Law of HKSAR of the PRC, and likewise the Hong Kong emblem, the Hong Kong government website, all official documents from the chief executive, and all Hong Kong passports wouldn't have to use this awkwardly long convention. The PRC government's argument for having this long-form name was that it now "clarifies" Hong Kong's status as part of China, rather than its colonial predecessor, Britain. Its always hits a nerve with PRC authorities when flights to HK are listed as "international" even though they are treated as such by customs, ATC, etc. It's a political gesture, obviously, and people may not agree with it, but in the end, its still the long-form name, just like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is the long-form name of North Korea, regardless of its "rogue" painfully undemocratic traditions. Colipon+(T) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Emblem of Hong Kong

As you mention the Hong Kong Emblem, let's talk about the Emblem. You were saying the HK's official name in its full form is on the Emblem? For those who read only English (an long established official language of HK), it is undisputedly clear that the full name appears on the Hong Kong Emblem does not mention "People's Republic of China" in English. Everything happens for a reason, no? --Da Vynci (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As for what should be the full name, yes in many HK government webpages/document PRC's name is mentioned behind Hong Kong's name, however, this alone is not a proof of the full name is HKSAR of PRC. Appending a place name behind another name has been a long established way of adding descriptive detail about the subject, but no way it automatically means the appended place name is part of the subject's full name. For example, u may see phrases such as "Pondicherry the Union Territory of India" in their official website, but the official name of the territory is actually just Union Territory of Puducherry.

Citing how the name "HKSAR" of "PRC" appear together is the title of such documents as Basic Laws, Websites, etc. proves only "Basic Laws of HKSAR of PRC" is the titile of those documents, not the territory. Mentioning the name of PRC could be just a description about where HKSAR is. To cite what the official name is you need reference that actually say "Hong Kong's official is", like this reference from the Department of State. --Da Vynci (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, Da Vynci. This is a very interesting issue. I still stand by the belief that the full name is indeed HKSAR of the PRC, because there is more evidence to support that - whether this evidence is conclusive is, like you presented, debatable (but it's the same with the "Head of State" issue, really). I think our current compromise is good - long-long form in infobox, short-long form in intro. Like you I am against putting HKSAR of the PRC in the first sentence of the intro, and I think the page should be semi-protected for that reason (and other possible points of reversion... see below). Colipon+(T) 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent... --Da Vynci (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this again? It's just logical that:

• "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" = "Hong Kong"
• "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" = "Hong Kong, China"

If the long form of Hong Kong is "HKSAR of PRC", then what is "Hong Kong, China"? The "of the People's Republic of China" part is simply to distinguish it from the recent past. It has been proven that "HKSAR" can indeed be used alone. One more is here: Hong Kong Observatory's website HkCaGu (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What about these? [1] In many of these documents there is a phrase like ' The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China ("Hong Kong Special Administrative Region") having been duly authorised by the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Something Country, blahblahblah'. Umofomo (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Citing how the name "HKSAR" of "PRC" appear together is the title/body of such documents as Basic Laws, Websites, laws, agreement etc. proves only "Basic Laws of HKSAR of PRC" is the titile of those documents, not the territory. Mentioning the name of PRC could be just a description about where HKSAR is. Similarly, if a paragraph reads "King Henry VIII of England (King Henry VIII) declared war with France." Does that mean "Henry VIII of England" is the person's full name and "Henry VIII" is the short name? No. The country name is appended to added descriptive indication, not as part of the full name. King Henry VIII's full name is just King Henry VIII. To cite what the official name is you need reference that actually say "Hong Kong's FULL official name is", like this reference from the Department of State. --Da Vynci (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First, full names of the parties to these treaties or agreements are mentioned in the first paragraph of the body of these documents. Second, they include something like ' ("Hong Kong Special Administrative Region") ' after the full name of the territory. This is a style suggesting the name in brackets and quotation marks is the short form. Third, the US State Department website that you cited did not tell whether this is the *full* official name or not. Umofomo (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the documents u cited actually say what the full official name is. They could be just stating the name of the territory (HKSAR) plus the full name of the country (PRC). It is similar to assuming King Henry VIII of England is the person's full name because it is longer, but the full of the person actually is just King Henry VIII. All you did was assumed and suggested, without decisive evidence. Well, if there is no reference indicate what is the Full official name, i guess we will need to use the reliable reference that indicate the Official Name instead. --Da Vynci (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A note regarding the "full name" of Hong Kong － I am not trying to challenge China's sovereignty over Hong Kong, but I do think that the "full name" of Hong Kong should be Hong Kong Special Administrative Region rather than Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. This fact is reflected in various things in Hong Kong. For example, when we write a cheque to the Government of Hong Kong, we are required to make the cheque payable to "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Also, at the top of the last page (i.e. the personal information page), of an HKSAR passport, it says Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China (without using the conjunction "of the"). If you're from Hong Kong, you'll notice this. That's why I suggested several days ago that we should invite more people who are actually from Hong Kong to participate in editing the Hong Kong article, because they should be the ones who are the most familiar with the subject matter. If Hong Kong folks don't make more contributions, it would be too much of a burden for our mainland Chinese friends, who have been diligently editing the Hong Kong article for us. - Alan (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Name?

Hong Kong changed its name to Xianggang during the british periode it was called Hong Kong but the Chinese name is Xianggang. Like Macau is almost an unused name for Aomen and the name (Macau) is practicly never used sindse 1999.--82.134.154.25 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese name is not Xianggang. It is 香港. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it troll feeding time already?DOR (HK) (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 7Gong, when a word is written using 9 latin alphabets, it is definitely not Chinese. We use Chinese characters when we write Chinese language. We, fortunately, don't need to resort to use foreign characters when writing our own language. Thank you. Da Vynci (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible use for panoramic image

Hi. We currently have a panoramic photo of Hong Kong Island's skyline from Kowloon and while it is a good photo, it is not very detailed and has some stitching faults (a duplicate boat, seam lines in the panorama etc). I took a similar photo (except at dusk) when I was last in Hong Kong at Christmas time, and thought it might be more useful. It is certainly much more detailed when viewed full size, but I can accept that others may prefer the existing daytime photo.

Here they are next to each other.

File:Pauliyas Hongkong.jpg

I will let the contributors decide whether to use the new one or keep the existing one. I can see some benefits and drawbacks to either, so I am not too bothered either way. I just wanted to bring the image to your attention. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi~ Thanks for ur input diliff, maybe it is just me but I somehow still find the Daytime one more appealing, the lighting seems play a critical role in picture like this, dispite it maybe not perfect when u check on each windows on the buildings. The daytime one has some inherented advantage in showing the general landscape of the island efficiently. Just my opinion, anyway, I do appreciate u taking the time to upload the pic and everything. Da Vynci (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph, again

Recently User:Da Vynci had returned to the lede paragraph and modified "largely self-governing" to "highly autonomous", saying that it was more fitting to the description given on the Sino-British Joint Declaration. In addition, he appended the word "special" to "territory", so now the article reads: "Hong Kong is a highly autonomous [8] special territory of the People's Republic of China". Special territory links to the article List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, not Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The previous version was "Hong Kong is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China". This version, which I believe to more accurately and neutrally define Hong Kong's current status, has been stable on the article for over three months (as per discussion above) before said user's changes yesterday. While I do not find these changes to be reflective of WP:NPOV myself, as they again attempt to tip the balance in favour of Hong Kong's 'separateness' from China, I would like to hear some input from other editors here on whether these changes are warranted. I attempted reverting the changes once, but my changes were soon reverted by Da Vynci. In order to avoid an edit war I have refrained from making any more changes until some more opinions have been heard. Thanks. Colipon+(Talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is because the actual article reads "Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a highly autonomous special territory of the People's Republic of China". The first mention of Special Administrative Region is already linked to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, there is no reason why we should write the same link twice next to each other. You should read the article more carefully next time. BTW, I have already removed "special" from "special territory", but retaining the "highly autonomous" because it is a notable fact. Da Vynci (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Several days before the Hong Kong edit, Da Vynci also made this edit over at Jackie Chan, removing mention that he is a "Chinese actor" and instead replaced it with "Hong Kong actor", along with a series of other edits, with the edit summary "He released Mandarin and Japanese albums." While this is not a serious issue I do think it warrants some input from other editors as well. Colipon+(Talk) 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there was no malicious intent in that. If he had done nothing but the "Chinese -> Hong Kong" bit, then it would be a misleading edit summary... but judging by the massive amount of changes made in that edit (speaking of which, has anyone cleaned up that ridiculous overlinking yet?), it looks like he just typed out the first thing he did (the music stuff) and then was too lazy to wrire "&misc." or anything like that. I wouldn't get too worked up about it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, I added Mandopop and J-pop to his music genre, because "He released Mandarin and Japanese albums" which I wrote in the edit summery, and Jackie Chan was born in Hong Kong (which was not part of China at the time), majority of his works was made in Hong Kong, that's why he is a Hong Kong actor, much like Danny Lee (Hong Kong actor). Also, I was writing on SchmuckyTheCat's talkpage the other day, and I saw what you wrote about me. I really think it is inappropite of you sneaking behind my back and leave message in other editor's talk page to ask them to "watch me closely". (Wikipedia:Stalking#Wikihounding?) You have already misrepresented me and personally attracked me in more than one occasions. Da Vynci (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries are a pattern. Patterns are something to get worked up about. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Don't you dare to smear the reputation of those who edit with respect to reference and reliable sources but disagree with you. Just whenever you see Hong Kong's autonomy being addressed, you accuse people being "misleading", "disruptive", "patten", without resonable explaination. Those are serious accusation and not to be used as a way to get rid of editors who you don't like. I understand the fact that Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy seems bothering you, but no matter how much u dislike this fact, it is the reality. Da Vynci (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just stay away from generalised terminology altogether and try to describe as close as possible what is legally defined in Chinese law, which is that Hong Kong is a provincial-level administrative region within China. We don't have to use those exact words of course, but the article describes in detail exactly how "self-governing" or "autonomous" Hong Kong is, and we shouldn't have to forever battle it out over whether or not to use terms like those in the lede. It's pointless in my opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The opening section meant to give a general idea of what is Hong Kong, so I guess we should avoid getting to stuck into the Chinese law things. Besides, Hong Kong's legal system is based on Common Law, not Chinese law. Omitting the very key word "highly antonomy" would give the false impression that Hong Kong has's antonomy is similar to provinces in the PR China. Da Vynci (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion on how to write the lede? Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Largely self-governing" seems better than "highly autonomous" to me—really they mean the same thing (as far as I can tell), but the second has a connotation of cultural and other independence, whereas the first is just in a government sense (which will make it less controversial). As for "territory" vs. "special territory" vs. "special administrative region"... well, the latter is the actual word for it, and can be conveniently linked to the article with more information on what SAR means. "Territory" seems a bit vague to me, although it's not terrible; "special territory", though, seems very useless (if you don't pipe the link to SAR, then what does "special" mean?). I think SAR, linked, is the best description for the lede. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing the pipe link from the SAR page to the special territories page is an act of specific disruption, this was well discussed before. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Again you try to smear people's reputation by using those "banning policy" terms irreponsibly. Hong Kong IS a special entities recognized by international treaty, moreover the special territories link in the opening sentence did not replace the SAR link, it is right next to the special territory link now. Both links are important, and the last discussion's consensus were to keep both. You didn't even provide any source that states HK is not a special entities recognized by international treaty and jumped to conclude my addition of the "special territory" link is a "specific disruption" ? It is a serious accusation, and demend you to retract it! You are the one who is trying to mislead people here. Da Vynci (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Either "largely" or "highly" sound like loaded words which cannot provide precise information. So I prefer remove these adjective to avoid conflict. This' gone on long enough. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just the opposite, in this case they soften the statement (if anything, they're weasel words, not loaded words); just "autonomous" would suggest that Hong Kong is 100% autonomous (and the same for just "self-governing"), whereas "largely" and such trim it down a bit. In this case, I think a word such as that is necessary. Failing to provide precise information is not a problem, as this is only the lede, and the situation can be described more precisely in the main text. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

They are adverbs, not adjectives.

"Largely" or "highly" should be included, becoz it helps to differentiate Hong Kong from other not so autonomous region, namely the Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China. The Basic Law reads a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power. If a constitutional document can be writen this way, there is no reason why we can't make reference of that.Da Vynci (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a SAR and an AR in China. Don't get the identities mixed up. HK, Macau, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang are like apples and oranges. You can't put apples in a galvanic cell and expect to power a lightbulb, and you can't expect to trick Adam and Eve into eating oranges. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course we know the difference is huge, I were the one saying their difference is hugh. That's why I suggest the word "highly autonomous" should be used here in this article instead of just "autonomous" which is used in [[Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China, where their de facto "autonomy" is nominal. Da Vynci (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to not suggest "how much" the autonomy HK is possessing. As thing change continuously. It's not entirely autonomous. But the situation is too complex so I prefer the word "partially" due to the conflict we have now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Basic Law describes it as "high", it doesn't just say "autonomy". So I would be ok as long as the words "high"/"highly" AND "autonomy"/"antonomous" are included in the opening section. i am also ok to remove "special" from "special territory" (with the link kept). Da Vynci (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement instead of Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I never say I am going to remove the link to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, it is already there in the first sentence, and I no intention to remove it. Da Vynci (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag's comments. Maybe we should begin an informal poll? Colipon+(Talk) 06:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag's comment too, especially how he so politely dismissed your accusation. As for a poll, absolutely not, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Da Vynci (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Highly autonomous" sounds like the amount of control the Dominion of Australia had from Great Britain during the 1920s, as if it were an independent nation with its own military, federal government and the rest of the works... (perhaps it can be compared with States and regions of Somalia: Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug all have their own militaries and governments, and so are "autonomous" from the Transitional Federal Government of the Republic of Somalia, however Hong Kong does not meet the same criteria) "SAR" would be a better way to describe the situation in Hong Kong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reference from Hong Kong Basic Laws that states "highly autonomous" means "independent military and federal government"? The Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 2) states Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power". If a constitutional document can be writen this way, there is no reason why we can't make reference of that. The Basic Law of Hong Kong is the most authoritative reference in the matter of Hong Kong autonomy. Da Vynci (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

btw, the word and link SAR is already included in the opening sentence, so if that's your concern , consider it is solved. Da Vynci (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Highly autonomous seems fine to me and backed up by the "high degree of autonomy" its basically the same thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Da Vynci, some of your recent comments border on WP:LAWYER, not to mention you are putting words in my mouth. I did not accuse you. I simply stated what happened and said "While this is not a serious issue I do think it warrants some input from other editors as well." I believe you are misrepresenting my intent.

Secondly, Rjanag actually said "largely self-governing" is better than "highly autonomous". In the same light, Benlisquare also said that "highly autonomous" seems inappropriate. BritishWatcher says he is fine with "highly autonomous". This also does not change the fact that the previous version was agreed upon after weeks of back-and-forth edits on the intro and remained stable for three months before sudden modifications. I do not recall a time when the Hong Kong article intro remained stable for so long. So please do not change it unilaterally and then come back to accuse editors like myself of unethical behavior and the like. I find that very offensive. Colipon+(Talk) 01:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If u have a reference that say Hong Kong is a largely self-governing territory, I would like to see it. Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 2) says Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power". It doesn't say "Large degree of self-governance". Da Vynci (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with reliable sourcing. It's about how to properly represent Hong Kong's situation given the circumstances. I do not dispute, and never have, that Hong Kong enjoys a "high degree of autonomy". This is already mentioned very clearly in the second paragraph, plus it also describes why in a very succinct and easy-to-understand manner. Having another reference to it in the first paragraph is, in this case, redundant. "Largely self-governing", on the other hand, portrays the situation quite well in summary, and directly implies Hong Kong's political, economic, and legal separation from the PRC (as per Rjanag and Ben's comments above). If you claim to agree with Rjanag, then "largely self-governing" is a better choice than "highly autonomous". Colipon+(Talk) 09:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In othe words, you have no reference and just tried to present the opening sentence according to your POV. According to your "rationale", I can also say "I do not dispute HK is part of PRC; but it is already mentioned in the later paragraph; plus it also describes why in a very succinct and easy-to-understand manner, is redundant." How about that? If we remove "highly automous" and "special territory" from the opening sentence, the mention of People's Republic of China also should be removed bases on the same rationale proposed by Colipon. Da Vynci (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is just circular, argumentative reasoning. Please note that it was not me who removed your last edit of 'highly autonomous', but User:Ohconfucius, who stated in his edit summary that it was redundant; he also sourced the "high degree of autonomy". If you want to continue to accuse me of being "non-neutral", fine. But Rjanag and Benlisquare also said that 'highly autonomous' is not the best NPOV. Therefore it is ill-advised for you to continue reverting these changes. Colipon+(Talk) 09:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your motive and ethic is seriously questionable. First u invited your friends (here and here) who rarely edit on this page before to give "neutral" and "expert" opinion on this article, then u suddenly suggest to hold a poll? Interestingly, none of them able to provide reference for the term "self-governing", but just happen to agree with you that "self-governing" is a better choice. Da Vynci (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also Ohconfucius, a Hong Kong editor known for his NPOV, that removed your "highly autonomous" line from the first paragraph. Colipon+(Talk) 12:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am extremely offended by these accusations. Editors should be able to ask third-opinions to other editors, without being levied charges. I respectfully as that you withdraw your statement. Colipon+(Talk) 12:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet you still can't provide rationale why "highly autonomous" is redundant to appear in the opening sentence but "People's Republic of China" is not? They both appear in later paragraphs, if "People's Republic of China" is not redundant to appear in the OP sentence, neither do "highly autonomous". Da Vynci (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I just removed the "highly autonomous" in the first paragraph as redundant (repeated in the second paragraph of the lead). I chose this one to remove because the first one relates to Hong Kong's geographical situation, whereas the third paragraph deals with its political ones. What's more, the one in the second ie referenced to the basic law - we would be reporting something factual, and not trying to conjure up some artificial neutrality by synthesis. In any event, as I said in the edit summary, Hong Kong's autonomy is more imaginary than real, and the Basic Law is just a document which can be interpreted any which way - as Wu Bangguo said "Hong Kong will have as much power as Beijing wants it to and nothing more." - which has so far proven to be true. And also, everyone knows that Sir Donald Tsang is too afraid to even go for a piss without asking Beijing's permission beforehand.  :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. First, the opening sentence is supposed to give a general idea of that the subject is (in this case Hong Kong), it should contain essential description of the subjects. The article Hong Kong is not a geographic article, but a comprehensive description about the place (which include its people, politic, economic, etc), thus giving priority to only geography in the opening sentence seems more like a person preference rather than a justified intent. Da Vynci (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The principle of "high degree of autonomy" is a essential part that shaped the present day Hong Kong, without it, the entire content article will be different (the currency, legal system, official lanuage, politic system will be just the same as China). Considering the "high degree of antonomy" is the prime principle behind that CAUSES those distinction in details, including it in the opening section is essential. Da Vynci (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Colipon described you as "a Hong Kong editor known for his NPOV", so maybe you can read Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 2), which says Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power". Yet u chose to say "Hong Kong's autonomy is more imaginary than real", did you or did you not? That made your view POV because of your disrespect to the idea of reference and reliable sources. Da Vynci (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh ,btw , Ohconfucius, do you have reference that states "Hong Kong's autonomy is more imaginary than real" to prove you are not POV editor? Da Vynci (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are basically lawrering the same argument. I already inserted " 'high degree of autonomy' in all areas with the exception of foreign affairs and defence, and cited it to the Basic Law, and I feel that any further mentioning in the lead is detrimental, as it should be a concise summary. You have singularly failed to demonstrate how your repeated insertion of the words 'highly autonomous' in the first paragraph is necessary to achieve the objectives set out in WP:LEAD. Furthermore, your bolding of the repeated quotation from the Basic Law is beginning to get tiresome. I am not getting into any of your petty arguments and character assassinations, nor will I succumb to your baiting. Reverted again. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the current wording where it just says "is a territory" is a very weak sentence and paragraph, the first paragraph tells us nothing about what sort of territory Hong Kong is, for some reason we have to wait until the 2nd half of the second paragraph??? Highly autonomous was good, largely self governing or something along those lines is needed in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The entire intro paragraph can be condensed. Describing HK simply as 'territory' of the PRC leaves out a lot of description. What does saying "Alaska is a territory of the United States" say about Alaska? That is not very descriptive and effective in my opinion. What type of territory? You can easily condense a bunch of these sentences into one sentence that is more descriptive and makes more sense.Phead128 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "Territory" is much too ambiguous a word to be used on it's own to describe Hong Kong in the introductory statement. Especially when referring to Commonwealth or former Commonwealth entities; examples being the "provinces and territories" of Canada, which holds the word "territory" to that of an area that have "no inherent jurisdiction". Australia, on the other hand, defines "territory" quite differently; AFAIK. they hold that word to be equal to that of a state, as a self-governing entity (please correct me if I'm wrong). The States have their own definition, too, but I'm not bothered to explain—you get the point. The word "territory" in itself is too vague to describe the situation. I edited it so that it says "arguably autonomous", hopefully that term isn't a implicative as "highly autonomous". (With luck we can come up with better term that fits. I didn't mean for that "arguably" to stick there for long)

@Colipon—As long as it's not "territory" in itself, I'm open to suggestions as to how that can be rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiknerd (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

NEVER! Volvo B9TL 01:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, go ahead, since Donald Tsang is just being Hu Jintao's pet dog. He does whatever Hu wants just to make Hu happy. Volvo B9TL 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pipe-linking

I also do not see much sense in insisting to pipe-link the word "territory" to "List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement". None of the other territories (Aland, Svalbard, Andorra, Greenland, even Macau) listed on this page pipe-link any content to this page in their lede. No sufficient reason has been given to have this link there, except for an argument to highlight Hong Kong's "special status". I would say we remove this link altogether. Colipon+(Talk) 09:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong to highlight Hong Kong's special status. It is a notable fact and HK is a special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. Your "rationale" is basically "I want to see this"/"I think don't want to see that", anyone can remove any other useful pipe-links using your way of thinking. Removing important link just becoz other article don't have it is a ridiculous reason. Using your rationale, Aland has the word "autonomous" in the first paragraph so we should include that, but yet you self-contradictictorily objected to that in the above discussion. Da Vynci (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't entirely understand your argument. So you believe that my reason of "other articles don't link it so we shouldn't link to it with HK" is insufficient... but you have yet to give a reason for the link to be there at all, aside from "to highlight Hong Kong's special status", which is inherently reflective of your POV and further reflected in your edits. Let the fact that Hong Kong is "special" speak for itself. A read through the second paragraph of the lede and it is very apparent that Hong Kong is special and distinct - the fact that it is politically, economically, and even culturally separate from mainland China is very clearly presented in the lede. There is no need to insist on making these "special" references in every single paragraph to represent a single POV. Colipon+(Talk) 09:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because Hong Kong IS one of the special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, and there are only handful of those special entities on this world. Da Vynci (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)72.81.233.92 (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

@Colipon— is there an argument other than the fact that other articles don't link to it? Because I don't see why not that HK should not be linked to that list; HK is a "special entity recognized by international treaty or agreement". As fot the pipe-linking; read my post above in the "autonomy" argument—"territory" in itself is too vague.

Crown colony

I've restored this edit. While other areas were colonised, only Hong Kong Island was formally ceded to the UK in 1842 through the Treaty of Nanking. The southern Kowloon Peninsula wasn't formally ceded until the Convention of Peking in 1860. Spellcast (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)