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

Image to use somewhere?

I've uploaded a (very) large panoramic image of Hong Kong island at night as seen from Kowloon near the New World centre. It might be useful in the article somewhere? Hesitant to make edits myself and have them crushed by the masses. Nition1 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

I ask you why the HK gov't is listening to Premier Wen Jiao Bao to diversify it's economy to 6 new industries? It's because of HK has to innovate because it's facing stiff competition from mainland cities. Obviously the synergy between a HK-Shenzhen merger will provide ample opportunity for next stage growth (for what reason? Premier Wenjiabao answered that question)This isn't my opinion, this is the generally accepted opinion of the world that HK needs to raise the bar up in order to maintain it's relevance as an international financial centre.Phead128 (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is more like the opposite. As an adjustment HK (purposely) stalled development from 1998-present for mainland to catchup. Just look at the wages. People in HK 2009 gets paid less than they do in 1999. Mainland needs to raise wages by a factor of 10 to catchup. What HK hasn't seen is a major wage subtraction. Benjwong (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Beijing and London actually injected capital to artificially prop up the HK market in the years following and after 1997 in order to "save face" so that neither is to blame for a faltering dead cash cow that is HK. Example include trade-pacts like CEPA that give HK firms preferential access to mainland markets, elimination of double taxation, tariffs on HK goods, free flow of human capital, etc... Beijing even supported the Hong Kong dollar during the Asian Financial crisis. HK is struggling to maintain it's identity among cheaper Chinese competitors. That's why it lost it's #1 status as the world's busiest port due to cheaper competition across the border in Shenzhen. It's all about costs and the mainland has an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor. Phead128 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjwong: Come on, we are both HK ppl here. Do you mean HK purposefully dropped it's Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) percentage of total investment into Chinese markets from 75% pre-1997 to 33% now? Hong Kong is the largest investor in Shanghai for a reason. HK is China's international financial centre for capital fund raising (a la largest IPO site in the world) and largest trading entity (11th largest trading entity in the world). Not bad for a city of 7 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If Shanghai is such a great place to invest, why are the richest people in China throwing their investment in US properties instead? Politics has more to do with it than revenue returns. The rich people in HK wants the mainland to gain its trust. Just as Chinese investors want US to gain its trust. Benjwong (talk) 05:04, 10 November 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)

The merge is alot more than just economic numbers. Benjwong (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

HK's future will depend on how well it sustains it's current legal and political system under CCP influence, diversify it's economy, and integrates with the Pearl River region delta. HK must maintain it's legal system and distinct political effectiveness in it's territorial regional affair. HK must reinvent itself in the face of adversity. Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Shanghai, Seoul, and Taipei are seeking to become new financial hubs in Asia following in the footsteps of Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore, sucking crucial capital away from HK. Diversifying away from tourism, property market, finance and trade is key to future HK GDP growth. Merger wil Shenzhen will reintegrate HK with it's manufacturing hinterland, direct access to larger population, labor pool, market, land, etc...limiting factors that prevents HK from becoming the next London or NYC.Phead128 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As complex as it is. I personally do not see economy to be an issue for the merger. I would even say that is the only thing they agree on. Benjwong (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging wiht Shenzhen is just a fantasy as the mainland government would never let go of its power and let Hong Kong runs Shenzhen

I don't know where all the "integration" and "merger" talk is based on. Seriously, merging Hong Kong and Shenzhen is contrary to the Basic Law. If you guys want to develope a paragraph on this, "cooperation" is the better choice of word. Craddocktm (talk) 09:14, 5 December 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)."British overseas territories" provide yet another definition of the word, and so does the French overseas territories. India also has their "Union territory". 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. --K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 04:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with BritishWatcher. I am ok as long as the words "highly autonomous" is kept in the opening sentence. Mainly duo to the fact that The Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 2) states Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power". Da Vynci (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• <sigh> The "..according to Basic Law, it has a high degree of autonomy.." was inserted to placate Da Vynci, now xhe insists that it must appearance in the first sentence. Please just be mindful of the avoidance of repetition in good prose. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you genuinely care about a phrase being repeated more than once, the name "People's Republic of China" is mentioned more than 10 times in the article, and we can't mention "autonomous" twice? Da Vynci (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental difference between 'autonomous' and 'People's Republic of China' is that the former is an adjective which is used once already in the same paragraph, and the latter is the parent nation of the subject, the mention in most of those cases is unavoidable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So is there any other reason you insisted to avoid the word "autonomous" in the opening sentence, apart from it appears twice in the paragraph? Da Vynci (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So is there any other reason you insist on having the word "autonomous" twice in the opening paragraph? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't insist to include the word autonomous twice in the opening paragraph, but the word "autonomous" should be mention at least once in the opening sentence. It is the fundamental constitutional principle that shapes Hong Kong, if that principle does not exist, almost every sentence in the article will be different. It is also backed up by constitutional reference. If a subject that has constitutional importance, it suppresses the "avoidance of repetition" that you concern. What you just said about "People's Repubic of China" is that it's significant enough so it is unavoidable to mention repeatedly (50+ times in the article). Well, the same applies for the mention of principle of autonomy of Hong Kong, and I'm just saying it should be mentioned once in the opening sentence.Da Vynci (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, strictly speaking, to be repetitive, u need to have the exactly phrase appearing repetitively. The 1st mention is "highly autonomous" (giving general concept of the place), the 2nd mention is "high degree of autonomy" (detailing the practice), they are of equal meaning but technically not repetitive. If you are genuinely care about paragraph, we can well adjust the paragraph division. Da Vynci (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, the sentence you just added "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is repetitive. Da Vynci (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked you a question first, but you returned me w/ a question, I showed good faith so I answered your question first. Now, it is your turn to answer my question u previously ignored. So is there any other reason you insisted to avoid the word "autonomous" in the opening sentence, apart from it appears twice in the paragraph?Da Vynci (talk) 07:54, 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)

@Wikinerd: It's true that "Territory" is vague, but Hong Kong's degree of Autonomy is directly stated below in its stipulations in the Basic Law. If we need to place something in the first sentence, I'm fine with "Largely self-governing". "Highly autonomous", like OhConfucius has pointed out, is more or less synthesis. Colipon+(Talk) 08:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedians who created this silly trouble. It's the paramount leaders in Beijing who did it. The full official name of this territory is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". No other dependent territory would have such a silly clumsy name. The name already describes what it is and whose does it belong to. No elaboration is necessary. (I simply can't imagine any other place would have to go around international organisations with designation like "Hong Kong, China". "Gibraltar, UK"? "Aruba, Netherlands"? Huh?) Quarry Bayer (talk) 19:55, 21 October 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 for the pipe-linking; read my post above in the "autonomy" argument—"territory" in itself is too vague.--K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 04:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am of the view that it is intentionally misleading, and its use has only really ever been pushed by User:Da Vynci. Besides, that article is a list, not a concept. If we are pipe-linking the concept of "territory", we should actually link it to an article about the type of territory Hong Kong is, that being a a "special administrative region". How to phrase it is another question. Colipon+(Talk) 08:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the link, and the word altogether. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We HAVE already linked it to "special administrative region" right at the first sentence. Colipon, don't u see the link? No one is removing the link to SAR! We are just saying after the SAR link, we should keep the "territory" link too, because most English sources commonly call Hong Kong a territory (you can hear this on everyday's TVB English news), specifically it is a special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. If pipe-linking is really the problem for you, I don't mind just to use "special entity" which is the direct part of the link. Do you want to use "special entity" instead? Da Vynci (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The word 'territory' in the first sentence, and the way it is linked, is pretty misleading, and is tantamount to point-pushing; the constant revert wars being fought on this, as well as the insisted repetition of 'autonomous' makes that point-pushing not so civil. Hong Kong is not the Vatican, Monaco, Andorra or Lichtenstein (to note that none of those articles links to 'territory' – and don't go inserting that link there to prove your point – HK is now, whether you like it or not, an integral part of the territory of the PRC. Only a very small majority of people seem to be in denial of this fact, and there seems to be one who frequently edits this article to the point of exeerting ownership. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add to this, that "special entity recognized by international treaty or agreement" is a special kind of OR list that got made because the entries in it didn't belong on lists of states, lists of dependent territories, or some other term recognized by the UN or anybody else. It's a placeholder list for international oddballs. Linking to it has no definition for Hong Kong. The list refers to other articles to define how Hong Kong is special. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I like to comment on the above that to use Jackie Chan's not Chinese or Chinese actor identity in this discussion is bad. He has recently been trying to help more mainland pple, but has come off as completely communist-affiliated since the party gets him a lot of benefits. The average mainland citizen will never get the same treatment Jackie Chan gets. So he should not be used as a case of POV pushing. His case is different altogether. Benjwong (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Partial indirect democracy

What does it mean? Partial democracy or partial(ly) indirect? (Is there any country that is a direct democracy in the 21st century? What's so important with indirect?) Quarry Bayer (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hong Kong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and then give my initial impression. SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Initial comments:
  • Lead needs expanding per WP:Lead. The lead needs to be a mini-article. Many readers do not get further than the lead.
  • Good looking article - nicely presented and laid out.
  • Prose is clear and easy to follow, conveying sometimes quite dense material with clarity.
  • Images tend to be of excellent quality. There are a good range of useful images, both modern and contemporary with past events. One image File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg has a copyright query, the others are fine. I'd like an explanation of the issue regarding File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg, or for that image to be removed or replaced. While the captions are clear and useful, at times they are longer than suggested in Wikipedia:Captions - "Japanese troops enter Hong Kong...", "Situated at the heart of the city, St. John's Cathedral...", "2 International Finance Centre...". On the other hand "The Court of Final Appeal in Central" is perhaps not detailed enough.
    •  Done Shorten and lengthen on recommended captions per suggestion. Replaced File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg with File:Avenue of Stars Statue.jpg. Tavatar (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There have been some reverts recently, but these are mostly minor incidents to be expected in a major topic. The article is not currently protected, and protection is possibly not needed as the vandalism is being managed. I will, however, consider protecting it on request
  • There is the sort of detail a general reader would expect and want from such an article, and it is nicely balanced, with sub-pages for detail.
  • The information is presented in a neutral and appropriate manner - noting the pollution problem as well as highlighting the financial reputation.
  • This is a helpful and informative article. Quite impressive.
  • I will now look into the sourcing. SilkTork *^YES! 11:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Appears well sourced. All statements I checked went to a reliable source which clearly supported the statement.

• Address the minor image queries, and expand the lead and this will pass as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good. When you have finished the lead, let me know. I'll put the review on hold for seven days to allow time for the lead to be expanded. If you manage it before then or have any questions, please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've been working on the Lead to bring it up to guidelines in WP:Lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." This is taking some time as the topic is quite a large one, and I don't really know it. I think I'm almost there, though as I've been reading through the article carefully to look at what to summarise in the lead, I've been noticing stuff that I missed in my initial sweep....

Sources

There are large chunks of the article which are not cited. The bulk of the first paragraph of History is uncited - I'd like some support for facts in there like "salt production site" and "military port of strategic importance"; the whole of the "As textile and manufacturing industries grew..." paragraph is uncited; in Administrative districts the "The 18 districts can be split into three areas.." paragraph is uncited; in the Economy section the paragraph "The Government of Hong Kong plays a passive role..." is uncited; this "However, the population in Hong Kong continues to grow due to the influx of immigrants from mainland China, approximating 45,000 per year. Life expectancy in Hong Kong is 81.6 years as of 2006, the sixth highest in the world." and this "Signs displaying both Chinese and English are common throughout the territory. Since the 1997 handover, an increase in immigrants from mainland China and greater integration with the mainland economy have brought an increasing number of Mandarin speakers to Hong Kong." and this "Concerns over a lack of religious freedom after the 1997 handover have largely subsided, with Falun Gong adherents free to practice in Hong Kong; the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches each freely appointing its own bishops, unlike in mainland China." and this "Hong Kong's education system roughly follows the system in England, although at the higher education levels, both English and American systems exist. The medium of instruction is mainly spoken Cantonese, written Chinese and English, but Mandarin language education has been increasing." need citing; the bulk of the Culture section needs citing; and this "Hong Kong Island's steep, hilly terrain ..." in Transport. I don't know how I missed all that when I read through - but it certainly needs attention! SilkTork *^YES! 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that there are statements unsourced that could be challenged. Such as "The Hong Kong Government does not need to pay the costs of the resident military forces"; and "Since the 1997 handover, an increase in immigrants from mainland China and greater integration with the mainland economy have brought an increasing number of Mandarin speakers to Hong Kong"; "The Government of Hong Kong plays a passive role in the financial industry", etc. Such statements should be sourced or removed. I note that someone has helpfully put cite tags in the Culture section. I will go through and do the same to the rest of the article, and then give another seven days to allow the cite tags to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On hold until 13 November. Ping me if done before then. SilkTork *^YES! 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work all round. I've finished off the last cites so this has now passed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Quarry Bayer, I dont think you have any common sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.109 (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandwiching texts between images

I've removed a couple of images that were causing texts to be sandwiched between two images, per MOS:IMAGES. There are already plenty of images on the article, let's make sure they are not cluttering the text. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

any songs about Hong Kong?

List of songs about Hong Kong
Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article lead.

The first sentence of the first paragraph says (after I reordered it):

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China that was, until 1997, a British Crown colony.

whilst the first sentence of the third paragraph says:

Hong Kong was reclassified as a British dependent territory in 1983 until it was transferred to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997.

Which is contradictary and confusing. Certainly other crown colonies became dependent territories in the early 1980s, and when I lived in HK (in the late 80s) the c-word was hardly ever used. I suspect that it might be more correct to rewrite these two sentences as:

Ć:Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China that was, until 1997, a British territory.

and:

Formerly a British crown colony, Hong Kong was reclassified as a dependent territory in 1983, and remained as such until it was transferred to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997.

However given the number of commented exortations not to change various namings in this article, I'm reluctant to make the above change with first exposing it to comment. Thoughts?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Perhaps also: Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China that was, until 1997, a British dependent territory. Colipon+(Talk) 18:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer just this:

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. The whole crown colony/dependent territory thing is probably too detailed a point to justify inclusion in what is, IMHO, an over-long article lead. Should be dealt with in history instead, perhaps. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think given the amount of work some editors have put into this matter and the number of times its been ruined by interventions from POV users, it's time we think about locking the lede section. I wish there was a way we would do that. Colipon+(Talk) 11:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of my suggestion? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's already been implemented in the latest revision. It was a good suggestion. But I'm going to bet that someone will come and change it within the week because it "doesn't highlight Hong Kong's autonomy" or some such. Colipon+(Talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean Hong Kong is not a British territory any more?? ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Under "One country, Two Systems", Sovereignty does not preclude autonomy. In fact, China is the only state in the world that I know of that allows one area of it's country to practice one system while totally not allowing another part to enjoy the same privileges. HK's separate delegation to Olympics, World Trade Organization, APEC,etc (except ASEAN since HK is not sovereign) is acceptable under "One Country Two Systems" That's another reason how CCP justifies Taiwanese autonomy but it still claims Taiwan under "One country" policy. Does that mean Taiwan isn't autonomous because clearly it is.... but it's absolutely acceptable under "One Country, Two system" doctrine.Phead128 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is special administrative region a proper noun in the context of the first sentence of this article.

Previously the first sentence of the article read:

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China

with the capitalisation implying that Special Administrative Region is a proper noun.

I think that this is incorrect in this context. The test for a proper noun is uniqueness, and there are at least two special administrative regions (Macau and Hong Kong) with a third being sometimes suggested (Taiwan). I believe that this statement is referring to the concept of a 'special administrative region' rather to one specific such region, and should therefore be lower case. I have amended the wording (twice) in line with this. In the meantime it was changed back, but as no comment was made and other changes made, I'm not sure if this was deliberate or accidental.

If I'm wrong and this is a proper noun, then the article is clearly wrong (the is the article used with proper nouns, not a), and the sentence should read:

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is the Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China

but that seems wrong in the context.

Please note that I'm not arguing against the capitalisation in the name Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, which is clearly unique and a proper name. And sometimes we write the Special Administrative Region as a shorthand for that rather long name, and again in that context it is a proper noun. But I don't think either of those fit here. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. It is capitalized in the long form title but should not be as a concept. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The key thing to ask yourself here is: Would you call Hong Kong a "special administrative region" (without capitalization) if the PRC had not come up with that term? Sure the sentence would make some sense if Special Administrative Region was converted to its improper form, although most readers would have little to no idea of what a "special administrative region" actually is. By making the noun proper, you take away most of the burden of conveying the noun's meaning to the reader. I'm in favor of describing Hong Kong as a "largely self-governing territory", which essentially is a good definition of Special Administrative Region, which really is little more than a somewhat biased title made up by the PRC. Taluchen (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization doesn't indicate meaning. The usage in the first sentence is not a proper noun, therefore it is not capitalized. That is the way English grammar works. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You've missed the point completely. The proper noun "Special Administrative Region" (a title created by China) is deceiving in that does make sense when uncapitalized into a common noun. By calling Hong Kong a "Special Administrative Region", we're essentially referring to the title created by the China, and nothing more. To repeat, SAR can either be a proper or common noun, but unless you'd agree that calling Hong Kong a "special administrative region" is the best way of describing it if China never came up with that name, stick to the proper noun. And if you take a look at the SAR article, you'll see that SAR is always capitalized. Taluchen (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

When used as a descriptive term as opposed to an official title, it should be lower case. Britannica also uses lower case. Spellcast (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done on repeating what I've said and not comprehending anything else. According to the US government, "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China." Not satisfied enough? Try the Hong Kong government themselves. Taluchen (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And to comment about uniqueness: converting the proper noun to a common noun and determining its uniqueness will tell you about the noun's viability as a common noun. This, however, does not equate to the common form being a better alternative than the proper form. Taluchen (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutely against describing Hong Kong as a "largely self-governing territory" in the lead. The word "largely" is, firstly, WP:Weasel. And secondly, that is only a matter of opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Largely self-governing" is synonymous with "highly autonomous", quoted from none other than the Sino-Biritsh Joint Declaration. To the average reader clueless about Hong Kong's relationship with China, either one of these descriptions is a LOT more informative than what we have now. I'm sorry that the facts conflict with your Chinese nationalistic views. Taluchen (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Taluchen, your jumping in here and reverting me several times with "largely self governing" gave me a strong sense of déjà vu. I urge you to revisit the discussions we have been having here earlier on, where we dusted the issue. Essentially, User:HongQiGong is right. There is no point in using a weasely phrase when it "synonym" (your words) is official language citable to the city's constitution. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioning Hong Kong's "high autonomy" until the middle of the third paragraph (a crucial piece of information that should be in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence) for the sake of "repetition" is unsatisfactory for an encyclopedia. Frankly, I'm shocked by how much the people on this page want to play down the reality of Hong Kong's autonomy from China. Taluchen (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a highly autonomous city state. Chinese mainland National laws do not apply in HK. The laws are created by HK legislators because the late Deng Xiaoping said it best: "Hong Kong People can Govern Hong Kong well" and has given HK complete autonomy in almost every possible field EXCEPT military defense (HK does not even pay tax to CCP) and foreign relations). SOVEREIGNTY AND AUTONOMY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can coexist under "One country, Two system".... China owns HK, but HK operates under a completely different set of rules than mainland China. I am shocked at how much ppl are IGNORANT about the reality of HK's autonomy in the international community and in the world stage. HK is completely self governing with respect to the PRC. Sure the PRC may meddle in transborder extradition and secure obedient/loyal political followers. BEIJING DOES NOT play an active role in HK's political arena. That's a fact. I REPEAT, BEIJING does not play an ACTIVE ROLE in HK's day-to-day tasks.Phead128 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Taluchen (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, we know how Beijing never interferes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Here's another one: Zhou Yongjun incident Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that HK is an SAR is a fact spelt out in the Basic Law. Whether or not it is a "largely self-governing territory" or it is "highly autonomous", however, is not. Firstly, the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed 13 years before the handover, and 25 years ago. Whether or not the terms of the agreement are being realised is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Secondly, the Joint Declaration never stated as a matter of fact that HK is "highly autonomous". It only stated that it is the wish of the UK government that HK be given a "high degree of autonomy" after the handover, and that it believed that the Joint Declaration would accomplish that. In fact, if it was up to me, I would get rid of all occurrence of terms like "highly autonomous" in the article unless it was accompanied by a mention of whose view exactly that is. The degree of autonomy in HK has been an ongoing disagreement (in the real world) ever since the handover. This is why it's not easy for us to represent that in the article here. Taluchen, from your comment about my supposed "Chinese nationalistic views", I take it you are not exactly a fan of the mainland Chinese government. But the funny thing is that the Chinese government's official stance would probably agree with you in saying that HK is "highly autonomous" because they want the international community to believe that they are benevolent. If you ask the pro-Democrat camp in HK, they would most likely say that HK is not so "highly autonomous" at all and that HK's political reality is not living up to what is spelt out in the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Article 12 of the Basic Law explicitly states that Hong Kong has a "high degree of autonomy" from the PRC. Taluchen (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You go by what is OFFICIALLY stipulated by the National People's Congress. NOT alleged factual discrepancies between official policy and real world policy (because it overcomplicates things). "High degree of autonomy" and "highly autonomous" is virtually the same. It's not subject to personal interpretation because it's going by the OFFICIAL NPC PROTOCOL stipulated both the UK, HK, and CCP govt.Phead128 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is this going?

Taluchen seems entirely too willing to quote Wikipedia policy in his first edits, which are only about this page. Taluchen seems willing to edit war no matter the discussion on the talk page. What is the end goal here, Taluchen? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hong Kong's autonomy needs to be acknowledged in the first paragraph, not muddled up in the third.

And regarding the capitalization issue, both forms are grammatically correct. Consider Donald Tsang. You could describe him as the "Chief Executive and Head of the Government of Hong Kong" (as the article has done) or the "chief executive and head of the government of Hong Kong". If you want SAR uncapitalized, I want you to realize that this is because you prefer this version (for whatever reasons), not because you believe the proper noun form to be grammatically incorrect (or do you?). Taluchen (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the capitalization issue, I looked at the article on Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and when spelled out in generic form, it uses a capitalized format. Accordingly, I say stay consistent with other articles on the subject and capitalize it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, because I was going to correct that. Our dab page article, the Korean SAR, and the ROC SAR articles don't capitalize it. Used in this way, it is a thing, not a title. Things aren't capitalized. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It's a thing if you think of it as a thing. I prefer to think of it as a title, as do the US government and the Hong Kong government. Taluchen (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed and personally insulted at how HK's autonomy is the last sentence of the third paragraph. How is it important to state in the first paragraph that HK is the 179th largest geographic region in the world? HK's status rest in it's entrepot state that is separate (domestic/economic/legal affairs wise) from mainland China although sovereignty and ultimate power rests upon the CCP. Autonomy does not exclude sovereignty. They are ENSHRINED in "One Country (sovereignty), Two system (HK, Macao, TAIWAN govern themselves and local legislators play an 'active role' in their own domestic affairs).Phead128 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Having spent the last 12-1/2 years living in the Hong Kong SAR, and planning for it for more than a dozen years before that, I can confirm that it is never, ever sar. It is most commonly SAR and occasionally S.A.R.. HKSARG[overnment] is also common. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is because SAR (or S.A.R.) is an acronym; acronyms are usually capitalised in this way. The capitalisation of SAR says nothing about the capitalisation of special administrative region, which is what is being discussed here. -- Starbois (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Re-tool

I re-tooled the intro so that the more important things are mentioned first. Facts such as where it is, and how populated it is, should come before that quick timeline of Hong Kong history - which has now been moved to the bottom of the intro. Concerning the "high degree of autonomy", I've edited the sentence to specifically say that it is what the Basic Law says, and I've also included that Hong Kong comes directly under the central government, which is also what the Basic Law says. I believe this is the NPOV way to present the information. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to add an additional statement that the "the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong should be a Special Administrative Region" and explicitly mention the source of every single statement in this article, or only the ones that disagree with your POV? Taluchen (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The former. Thanks. And the fact that China resumed sovereignty is stated in both the Joint Declaration as well as the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That comment was a serious accusation of lack of good faith against HongQiGong by Taluchen, whose non-NPOV editing I've had quite enough of. He reminds me of another user, but only seems to edit this one article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I retract that "accusation" since you took it the wrong way. I don't believe that he was acting in bad faith, but that his faith is subconsciously influenced by his desire for China reunification (taken from his page).

And if you think that Hong Kong's autonomy is less worthy of a mention than the fact that it is the "179th largest habited territory in the world", then I don't know what to say. Taluchen (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Then don't say anything at all. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd benefit perhaps from a little common sense. Taluchen (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note that this sort of comment would be considered uncivil, and is frowned upon in WP. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The way "directly under the central government" is written is a simple reiteration of the transfer of sovereignty and to be honest is kinda confusing as to what it actually means. It could mean a number of different things such as HK directly reports to CCP, HK is under CCP sovereignty, HK has SAR status equal to Guangdong and Shanghai/Tianjin/Chonqing municipality etc... It honestly doesn't make sense without a proper context. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The way that "Hong Kong comes directly under the central government" seems to me that CCP is in control of HK's daily affairs. Beijing assumes sovereignty role over HK via defense and foreign relations but Hong Kong people and locally elect officials govern HK's domestic, economic, legal affairs. That statement has absolutely no meaning. It conflicts between sovereignty and autonomy which I believe is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about the inclusion of the particular statement, but however, it is specifically stated in the Basic Law that Hong Kong "comes directly under" the central government. I do disagree with your assessment that it has "absolutely no meaning" - the point is that HK is a provincial-level administration, thus directly under the central government. It does not report to Guangdong's provincial government. The Basic Law needed to state where the HK government stands in the hierarchy of the Chinese government. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Hong Qi Gong. I didn't know (judging from that particularly statement directly under the central government mean exactly equal to provincial/municipal status without any other SAR/Municipal/Provincial government interference. I personally believe it should explicitly say that maybe?72.81.233.92 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the objection is down to the statement "HK comes directly under the central government" which gives an impression that the central people's government is in direct control of HK's affairs. I must say it also looks that way to me. I suggest rewriting the sentence as, "Hong Kong is directly accountable to the Central People's Government." That is consistent with the meaning of the Basic Law and avoids giving the false impression said above. However, being required to report directly to the central people's government is not equivalent to provincial/municipal status. Therefore, I suggest that we add "Hong Kong is directly accountable to the Central People's Government", but personal opinion like the provincial/municipal status should not be included. Craddocktm (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point to note. I oppose adding Hong Kong's accountability to the Central People's Government in the intro. It's not so important that warrants a line there. Donald Tsang goes to Beijing and reports on Hong Kong only once a year. I suggest that it should be added in the Governance section. Craddocktm (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. It's either you add SAR has provincial level status or you don't. Accountability means direct and active role in HK affairs which could be further from truth. I think it is noteworthy to add SAR provincial level status (non-interference from Guangdong) in the governance section since it's more detailed information. It's probably more important to state "High degree of autonomy in in all areas except foreign relations and military defense" because HK autonomy has no bounds unless you specifically state it's limitations (sovereignty wise to autonomy).Phead128 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about adding the provincial level statuts, as the term appears nowhere in the Basic Law or in other texts. If you wish to emphasis on non-interference from Guangdong, quoting Article 22 is the better option. It expressly states no province or municipal etc may interfere with HK affairs. Also, I don't see what's wrong about accountability towards the Central People's government. Accountability means being held responsible for what one has done; if CPG has direct and active role in HK affairs, it is nonsense to say HK will nevertheless be accountable. At any rate, if you don't like "accountability", saying HK report directly to the CPG would be a better choice of word than "come directly under". Craddocktm (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate first that I don't feel strongly about adding anything in the intro about HK being "directly under" the central government. Leave it out if that's the concensus. But I do think it's bordering on bias that there's such a strong push for having "high autonomy" in there because that's how it's stated in the Basic Law, while leaving out "directly under" the central government, even though that's also explicitly stated in the Basic Law. Look, I personally think HK does have a high degree of autonomy, but my personal opinion on that issue, as well as that of other editors, don't matter here. As I've stated, the degree of HK's autonomy has been a matter of disagreement by the people who are directly involved in HK politics or by people who study it. If we are to add that HK has a "high degree of autonomy" because that's what Basic Law says, we really need to consider also the fact that it comes "directly under" the central government - exactly as it is quoted. In fact, the "high degree of autonomy" and "directly under" statement are both within the same sentence in the Basic Law. Article 12 says:

• "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government."

I really have to question the insistence of quoting "high degree of autonomy" yet leaving out the "directly under" part. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of putting it in the intro. Of course I know "directly under" is in the Basic Law, but is it really such a distinguishing and important feature of Hong Kong that warrants mention in the intro? Nobody would dispute Hong Kong's autonomy guaranteed under the Basic Law is a highly distinguishing and important feature. Her autonomy is exercised day and night by the SAR government, and is fundamental to the concept of "one country, two systems". On the other hand, reporting to the CPG is something the CE does only once a year. When you compare the two this way, it's easy to see why "high autonomy" warrants mention in the intro, but "directly under" does not. It is certainly not "bordering on bias" to leave out "directly under" merely because it is explicitly stated in the Basic Law. Otherwise, we will have to cite every single article of the Basic Law in the intro. I'll emphasize again that I support placing "directly under" in the governance section. Craddocktm (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but I really have to wonder if you've understood what I've said - about the fact that whether or not HK has a "high degree of autonomy" is not universally agreed upon, and about the fact that our own opinions (such as your analysis of how autonomous HK is and that you seem to think the only string the central government pulls on HK is that the Chief Executive visits Beijing once a year) do not matter.

• The Legal Foundations of Hong Kong's Autonomy: Building on Sand
• Torch Nears, Posing Test of Autonomy in Hong Kong
• HKHRM review
• Subverting Hong Kong's Autonomy

Probably one of the worst trespasses against the promised "high autonomy" of HK is the fact that HK courts are bound by the central government's interpretation of Basic Law. In other words, HK courts cannot overrule the central government. But I digress. The point I'm trying to make here is if we're going to use the words "high degree of autonomy" for the reason that it was stated in the Basic Law, then the NPOV thing to do is to also state that it is "directly under" the central government, as the Basic Law states also. The words "high degree of autonomy" is as ambiguous as "directly under". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to clarify this issue of "directly under". It's not necessarily to highlight that Hong Kong is under central government control. I believe it simply means that between the central government and the Hong Kong government, there is no intermediary. Hong Kong is directly accountable to the central government, not any provinces or any other authorities. It nominally places Hong Kong as a "provincial-level subdivision" of China with a substantial amount of self-governing powers.

Just to reflect on this whole discussion, Hong Kong, in many ways, operates like an independent state. Just how it operates like a state - its separate laws, immigration system, political system etc., is clarified in the lede very well. It also operates as a subordinate unit of China - PLA is stationed there, Hong Kong residents are Chinese nationals - if they run into trouble abroad, it is the Chinese embassy that is responsible for them, its basic law is subject to interpretation by the NPCSC. There is a need to balance the two when describing Hong Kong's situation. By highlighting its autonomous elements but also deliberately minimizing its subordinate status is a form of POV-pushing that attempts to create some sort of misleading impression on the reader. Colipon+(Talk) 10:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And in case you haven't heard, Hong Kong has been promised 'universal suffrage' in 2017 Legco elections. But it's more than likely that the NPC will be defining that term. It may do so in the way Deng redefined "socialism". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I think the "directly under" statement should also be in the lead is precisely because I think having the "high degree of autonomy" statement but not the "directly under" statement would be highlighting its autonomous elements but also deliberately minimising its subordinate status, and a form of POV-pushing. I think it's better if the intro either leaves out both statement and have the politics section go into details instead, or have both statement present in the intro to preserve NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If it takes a discussion this long to clarify what "directly under" statement means, then really it should not be in the lead statement at all. Since clarification of the statement within a specific context is necessary, I vote to include this in the governance section since it could be further expanded upon then. Hong Kong basically is a independent state however it's been stated that it is a part of the People's Republic of China and there is no reason to restate the sovereignty issue again and again and again. It's driving me insane.Phead128 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If Hong Qi Gong would like to specifically state the autonomous limitations to counter the POV pushing of merely stating "high degree of autonomy" alone, then rather than saying it's a sovereign territory of the PRC through "directly under the central government", we should put in high degree of autonomy in all areas except foreign relations and military defense because it states the autonomous limitations of Hong Kong. "Direct under the central government" does not merit inclusion in the lead statement since it's vague and is a simple reiteration of sovereignty. Autonomous limitations of HK is areas within foreign relations and military defense. That should be stated in the lead paragraph as well.Phead128 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A vague phrase like "directly under" has no place in an encyclopedia. The readers get it: China has sovereignty over Hong Kong. Given that this sovereignty is largely unexercised, stating that China has sovereignty over Hong Kong once is sufficient. We don't need it mentioned three times in the intro, while there's only a half-assed statement about Hong Kong's autonomy at the end. Mentioning sovereignty without autonomy is highly misleading, because sovereignty generally connotes control. I'm sure you can find a few extreme cases of China intervening and delude yourselves into thinking that that's the norm in Hong Kong, but the truth remains that Hong Kong is highly autonomous, a fact verified by the authoritative Basic Law. Taluchen (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then, the blame lies with the Basic Law drafters, or, indirectly, Beijing. The vague language used is an open invitation for "reinterpretation" of the Basic Law by the NPC. You belief that it has no place here is of no great relevance, because it's part of official language, gobbledegook though it may be. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree that it is vague?72.81.233.92 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't agree with what is said by Hong Qi Gong and quite a number of others. Seems many of you have difficulty distinguishing between sovereignty and direct accountability to the CPG. The NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law, stationing of the PLA etc merely reflects on China's sovereighnty over Hong Kong, but does not translate automatically to Hong Kong's direct accountability to CPG. Sovereignty and accountability are two different concepts. For example, China exercises sovereignty over a county, but the county is not directly accountable to CPG. In this article, as long as there is sufficient mention of China's sovereignty over Hong Kong together with Hong Kong's autonomy, that's sufficent NPOV. Inclusion of HK's direct accountability to CPG is actually POV pushing as there is no elaboration on Hong Kong's autonomy but mention of the direct accountability point which tips the balance towards sovereignty. As to the derogations of autonomy said by Hong Qi Gong, I feel unnecessary to go into the matter as it is completely irrelevant to the issue on hand. You guys are proposing to add the entire Art. 12, but what Hong Qi Gong mentioned is actually undermining Art. 12 as a whole. Also, derogation of HK's autonomy is not equivalent to direct accountability to CPG. I wish to clarify I am talking about the Basic Law Framework here. Under the Basic Law framework, the "one country, two system" is the summary of the principles in the Basic Law. And incidental to this concept is China's sovereignty and Hong Kong's autonomy. Who Hong Kong reports to is a subsidiary matter under China's sovereignty. You may wish to note the Articles mentioning autonomy (2,12,13,16,19,22) and sovereignty (1,2,7,10,12,13,14), while direct accountability to the CPG is only mentioned in Article 12 and nowhere else. That speaks volume of the relative low importance of direct accountability. Craddocktm (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have no clue why this "accountability issue" mentioned in Article 12 is worth mentioning if ever. Honestly, it's confusing to veteran HK enthuiasts and has no right to be in the lead paragraph of the Hong Kong wikipedia article. It simply doesn't make sense without further elaboration. I also think that this is getting to be ridiculous. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My problem has never been the inclusion of the fact that HK has autonomous characteristics in the intro. It's the wording - "high degree of autonomy". Right now it is included because that's what the Basic Law says. That wording is as ambiguous as what "directly under" means. I've pointed out time and again that the degree of HK's autonomy is under debate in real life - it has been ever since the handover. I find it a little troubling that some of you just accept this promise of "high degree of autonomy" without question.

• There is no universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive - the election committee is picked by the central government.
• Only half of LegCo is directly elected.
• HK's court system is bounded by the central government's interpretation of the Basic Law.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What if we included how Hong Kong has separate delegate representation in world organizations such as APEC, WTO, APEC, etc... as a means of elaborating what "high degree of autonomy" means in all areas except foreign relations and military defense. ( I am surprised at why this autonomous limitation is not expounded upon in the lead paragraph) ALSO, High degree of autonomy can be directly expounded upon by listing examples of HK as a separate customs territory,legal systems, police forces, monetary systems, customs policy, immigration policy that are independent from China.

72.81.233.92 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Water area

The geography section contains this:

Of the total area, 1,054 km2 (407 sq mi) is land and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) is water.

I know this statement correctly cites the CIA world fact book for this, but none the less I'm very inclined to doubt its veracity. A quick look at the map on the cite shows a significant area of territorial waters, that is surely much more than a twentieth the size of the land area.

I'm inclined to suspect that the CIA water area figures are for 'inland waters' (High Island and Plover Cove reservoirs would surely account for a pretty large proportion of 50 km2). But a cite is a cite; anybody able to help here?. -- Starbois (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)