Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Sports!

Looks like we need to add something in the Sports section. It's completely empty! Hong Qi Gong 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The sports section was added by Petepetepete a couple days ago. Though I doubt whether it deserve a section in the main article since sports is not an important part of Hong Kong. In fact, to my opinion, not many Hong Kongers pay attention to local sports. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not many people in HK care about sports... unless you also count horseracing. Hahhah, but that's more like gambling. But there's certainly enough content to at least put up a seperate article and a little section here. Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sport_in_Hong_Kong. Hong Qi Gong 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sister City

I was looking at other Wiki pages on other international cities and I was wondering why Hong Kong does not have any sister cities in the world? Iman 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ng iman (talk • contribs) 23:30, July 13, 2006 (UTC) .

Thank you for pertinent question. I will find out. Hylas Chung 08:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because Hong Kong does not define the entirety or any part of itself as city for administrative purposes. The Government usually keeps in touch with the national governments of foreign countries, rarely, though not never, with state, province and city governments. The two concelhos of Macao, however, did twin with other cities. — Insta ntnood 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I did hear on TV that Singapore is a sister city of Hong Kong. I do not think it is official. I also do not think that people like the idea. Hylas Chung 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that refering HK as Singapore's "sister city" (or vice versa) stemms more from economic and political reasons than really enforcing the spirituality of being "friendly". Iman 02:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ng iman (talk • contribs) 02:54, July 18, 2006 (UTC) .

That's certaining not town twinning.. Remember the Asiaweek cover story "The Tale of Two Cities" late 1998? — Insta ntnood 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What's that "Tale of 2 Cities" of Asiaweek about? triumph 12:52pm, 30 July 2006 (Pacific Time)

Immigration Laws

I'm wondering what the HK's law for immigration? and how long do you have to stay in HK in order to be a permanent citizen?triumph2004 July 14, 2006 0:18am —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.243.92 (talk • contribs) 07:24, July 14, 2006 (UTC) .

You need seven years of permanent stay to be eligable for permanent residentship. You could try marrying into HK. You can also try to be an II (illegal imigrant) like my Grans:) Hylas Chung 08:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Touch Base Policy for IIs was changed in the early 1980s. :-) — Insta ntnood 19:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I will have to remind my cousins:) Hylas Chung 09:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

HKSmartId??--劉卓琳 Justina Lau 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

General style adjustments

Hi. I have made general adjustments to Hong Kong related pages. If anyone sees anything too messy please correct me. Hylas Chung 09:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly you've done? Can you provide diff links or a link to your edit history? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Hong Kong

As Hong Kong is currently governed by the "one country, two systems" rule which implies a 'western' legal system (based on former UK laws), does this mean that Hong Kong and Macau do not have death penalty? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.65.192.6 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you with certainty that Hong Kong does not have death penalty and only have life sentence as the maximum sentence. For Macau, although I am not 100% sure, I don't think there is death sentence there either. (but it's law is based on Portuguese ones though) --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The general Chinese government cannot overrule local HK courts and sentence HK citizens to death? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.205.192 (talk • contribs) 19:00, July 17, 2006 (UTC) .

Not generally, no. But the red authorities have claimed jurisdiction over a criminal when a crime, or part of a crime, was committed in red china. AFAIK, they have never had Hong Kong send someone over to them, only people arrested within the mainland. SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Hong Kong is its own legal jurisdiction. — Insta ntnood 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes and like the individual states in the U.S.A and Australia the Chinese authorities need to extradite an individual to the mainland through the courts, as china has authority over foreign affairs and defence only. Enlil Ninlil 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking all HK editors?

Hi. I tried to do some editing on the NLP (neurolinguistic programming) article. But there is an editor there who keeps calling me a sockpuppet. There were HK sockpuppets there some months ago who were banned. The usercheck did not show me to be sockpuppeting. The article is not being improved by that editor at all and it is easy to get it in shape if I am allowed. I want to know; is that editor allowed to block all Hong Kong editors? It looks like he is anti-HK to me. What is your thinking? Hylas Chung 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but why are some HKers so fond of using words like "Anti-HK" for any conceivable reason? It is a rather strong word to use, and to slap it on a user who is just trying to resolve vandalism problems in that article?--Huaiwei 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you having such impression? Who are the "some Hongkongers"? — Insta ntnood 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because "some HKers" (or rather too many then I would have tought normal) are giving me this impression. Why are you curious to know who they are, unless you are one too?--Huaiwei 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Huaiwei. I think nobody is looking for arguments. There is a rule in NPOV that articles should not be Anglo-American. It is quite mildly statement. It should be much stronger. It is a bigger problem than is stated. The NLP article has an editor with that problem. There is no vandalism there at all. Just an editor who wants to claim I am a vandal just so he can promote his beliefs. I made good edits with good sources. So check the facts first. There is a big problem with that article. It is mostly because an editor there is making the most of the opportunity after socks were banned to push his point of view. Hylas Chung 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be brought to WP:HKWNB. This talk page is for matters related to the Hong Kong article. — Insta ntnood 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Instantnood. Your suggestion is helpful. I did notice there are some blocked editors from outside HK though. So I reported the abuser to the Admin notice board instead. I hope they see the problem. It needs no more mention on this article. The Anglo-American issue is important though. Hylas Chung 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed statement on CfA rulings

This makes supposely final ruling of the judicial system to be not final, since any decision it make is subject to reversal by the NPC:SC by means of basic law interpretation.

This actually isn't true. An interpretation of the NPCSC is a legislative act rather than a judicial and does not change the status of cases already decided.

Roadrunner 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I have quite a few pictures I've taken of Hong Kong and would be glad to add them to the article, but I'm not sure whether Wikipedia really wants pictures I guess and I haven't quite figured out how to add them. Basically, would it be appreciated or just take up space if I added one or two. I don't mind if it's inappropriate or something, that's why I'm asking :D. Omishark 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Official Language?

Isn't the official language of Hong Kong now English and Mandarin? Taipan198 04:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The official languages are Cantonese, Mandarin, and English. They are the 兩文三語 of HK. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The official language of Hong Kong should be English and Chinese. That means the government documents are written in English and Chinese. Cantonese and Mandarin are the spoken languages. 兩文三語 is the language policy in Hong Kong. --Kfsung 06:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe that in court, you can request English be used or you can request English translators. So English is also an "official" spoken language as well. Not to mention that the status means English is also taught in school, spoken as well as written. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Mandarin is not an official language of Hong Kong. Chinese and English are the only official languages. In Hong Kong, Chinese means Cantonese, in practice. ---anonymous 04 Dec 2006

However, it should be noted that many vendors, governmental agencies speak mandarin, albeit they aren't always fluent! So, when you talk about writing stuff, Chinese and English are official. People rarely write in Cantonese.--Kylohk 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong isn't both Cantonese and Mandarin a spoken dialect of Chinese. Therefore Cantonese cannot be written in a sense. The writing itself has too forms. I believe Hong Kong and Taiwan uses the Traditional version officially, where as the mainland uses the Simplified version. ---K 14 Jun 2007

Actually, there are differences between written Mandarin (putonghua) and Cantonese. Mostly it is the choice of words (diction), such as road instead of street. However, there are some characters in Cantonese that do not appear in commonly used putonghua. --- DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007

If I remember well, British when founded the kind of Basic Law didn't rule precisely ( likely on purpose ) on which language ( spoken or written ) for Hong Kong and simply set "Chinese". So, one can interpret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.26.172 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this mystery place?

Would anybody know what this is? Maybe just some rich person's private island resort?

http://maps.google.com/?om=1&z=15&ll=20.702852,116.723943&spn=0.016339,0.023732&t=k

Astrophil 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting find. Just a little bit off Hong Kong. My guess is military-like. Appears that some sections have been purposely grayboxed?Luke! 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Those grey parts were added after I looked! Did you notice the tennis courts? Astrophil 20:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be part of the Pratas reef od economic in nature, see Pratas Islands. Enlil Ninlil 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that must be it, thank you, very interesting. Astrophil 20:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That looks a lot like an air strip for planes, if you look carefuly at the start of it you can see the arrows pointing in the landing direction

I'd say it is definitely a runway, and as the Pratas Islands wikipage refers to one, it must be one and the same. Interesting how someone has greyed it out since it was first noticed by Astrophil. Must be because it is "military sensitive". Tom M. 09:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong

I've revamped and given new direction to the WikiProject Hong Kong page. Feel free to invite more people to join. The more people the more effective. Be sure to also try and tag as many Hong Kong-related articles as possible with the WikiProject Hong Kong infobox found on the project page. Looking forward to working with you all. Luke! 19:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many sections + too long lead + weasel words

Some problems: "Culture" and "Religion" should be put into "Demographics" (as with other similar articles). "Climate" can go be trimmed then merged with "Geography" - not every 1000km square on Earth needs a specific mentioning of its climate. Most sections need to be trimmed into about 2/3 or less of its size - the article is far, far too long. Most sections has its own main articles so we don't need to put all the numbers and datas here. The lead is also very long. Half of the first paragraph deals with the naming (Hongkong, Hong Kong, blah) - definitely not necessary. The lead should be able to summarize the article and show the notability of Hong Kong, and is not a place to put all the "un-sectionized" materials into. There's also some weasel words in the article - e.g. "Hong Kong is China's richest region", "This is reflected in all aspects of the culture", "Due to the creative destruction so endemic to Hong Kong", "Hong Kong has never had its own military forces because it has never been a sovereign state, except voluntary auxiliary force like The Royal Hong Kong Regiment (The Volunteers)." A thorough cleanup is needed. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 13:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do it then. Thanks. Astrophil 18:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah.

Hawaii

What's the point of the comparison to Hawaii's latitude in the climate section? I don't think a scattered archipelago in the middle of the ocean works well as a reference point; even Hong Kong itself would do better...--cloviz 02:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii somehow, indeed, could count as the best reference point in the altitude range besides Hong Kong. --Der yck C. 09:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Tropic of Cancer is enough reference: Hong Kong's location right in the south of it clearly explains its position barely between the tropics. Having another place as reference point is out of place and biased.--cloviz 15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 release nom?

Is this page eligible for version 1.0 release nom? - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 11:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor Mistake

On 'Religion' on the last sentence it reads: "Interestingly, it is not uncommon for living room to have a Crucifix........" it should be "Interestingly, it is not uncommon for a living room to have a

Done.--cloviz 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Lee statue image

Just wondering: do we really want an animated GIF image of the Bruce Lee statue? I found it rather annoying as it changed while I was trying to read the article. Perhaps one high resolution image with a scaled down version for the article would make more sense than an GIF animation? Klepas 10:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that this image doesn't create any disturbance. Why did you say that? This is a pretty small image and it is under the category of "Culture" only. leungli 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's flickering and distracting to the reader. _dk 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the photo. Please give me comment, thanks!!! leungli 06:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Panorama photo

The panorama photo of the Hong Kong Island skyline is indeed beautiful, but it pushes the main content down and leaves a lot of whitespace on the page. The layout of the version before this was added (from October 20, 2006) looked a lot better. I suggest moving the panorama image under the Architecture section. Does anyone agree? KeL 02:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you didn't fix the text size, did you? you had better fix it to "largest" and you can see there is no space left. For the older version of this topic (i.e. the one on 20th Oct, 2006) I personally don't prefer. I dunno, probably somebody else would like to have other opinions. leungli 03:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Welw move the picture, I believe it made the article more interesting and captivative near the introduction. Enlil Ninlil 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the picture of Hong Kong? I think I see the Sydney Opera House.

Too bad the panoramic skyline photo couldn't display the right hand side first. The right hand side is more beautiful (and interesting) than the left. Is there a wiki script that scrolls the photo to the right by default? --UCLARodent 11:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great picture!!

Weather Averages for Hong Kong

Would it be better to use the HKO's data instead of weather.com? (1961-1990 data, 1971-2000 data) Insanephantom 13:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. I'll fix my chart later today --UCLARodent 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I updated the table to show HKO's data. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

laissez-faire

In the section on economics, I propose that the reference to Hong Kong's status as a "laissez-faire" capitalist society be removed. By definition, laissez-faire capitalism entails the total separation of state and economics, with a complete absence of government intervention. Though remarkably free, Hong Kong's government does intervene to some extent; for that reason, Hong Kong is not a laissez-faire society. -24.220.246.20

The nature of Hongkong

1) I delete all the categories referring macau as a country and nation.The reason is as follows Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China which clearly demonstrates Hongkong is a subdivision of People's Republic of China,not a country, a nation or a state.Despite Hongkong is a Dependent territory within China

see the exemple of Åland and Svalbard which donn't include any category of country or nation. 2)

I delete the British empire category which I found the exsitence of this tag without reason.See India and United States which were also a part of British empire,but in this page no the tag of brithish empire.--Ksyrie 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You should remove Hong Kong and Macau from those templates then. But if they exist on those templates, then those templates should be included on their articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Alfeewusy's edits

I see that User:Alfeewusy has recently done a number of edits to the article. While I see that most of them have been structural in nature, it might be good if some of these edits are discussed here before-hand, because this article is a featured article, and it would be nice if it stayed that way. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A featured article also has room for improvement if necessary. All I have done were constructive edits. A formal structure of Geographic Article begins Introduction, History, Geography & Climate then followed by others. Thanks!--Alfeewusy 10:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course featured articles have room for improvement, but one editor doesn't dictate what improves an article. I was just saying that some discussion would be great, because improvements are best achieved through collaborative efforts. Anyway, thanks for the edits. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

External links section

It seems to me the external links section is getting out of hand. Only the most relevent links, such as the HK government home page, should be kept. Please have a look at Wikipedia:External links, which says: [Avoid] sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. Most of the links in that section can be removed based on this guideline. KeL 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have significantly cleaned up the External Links section. I have folitered the external links down to those subjects that have specific in-article mentions. Luke! 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for deflation record

About this sentence:

Hong Kong's 68-month-long deflationary spiral, the longest and highest deflation according to Guinness World Records, ended in mid-2004, with consumer price inflation hovering at near zero levels

You would think that it would be easy to find an online reference for this, especially the Guinness record, but I spent about half an hour searching and could not find any. Can anybody else find a verifiable source for this? It might not be verifiable online, but the information is probably in either the 2003 or 2004 edition of the Guinness World Records book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Guinness removed roughly half a year ago many of the content on its website. The hyperlink [1] is, however, still quoted many where on the Internet. - Privacy 20:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since this is a featured article and I'd like to keep it that way, I've removed mention of the Guinness World Records because we can't seem to verify it anymore. I've also added a new reference for the end of deflation in 2004. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that the link is widely cited, it's adequately convincing that the information was once on Guinness' website. I myself have read that webpage too. Don't think it's appropriate to remove that piece of information simply because Guinness removed content from its website. — Insta ntnood 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem of WP:VERIFY though. And maybe my Googling skills just aren't very good, but I couldn't find even third-party information to reference this supposedly "widely cited" fact. By all means, if you can find a source for it, please add it back in with a reference. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you put it back, or provide any diff links? — Insta ntnood 11:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from world records, the 65 months is inaccurate. The Composite Consumer Price Index fell for 67 straight months, December 1998 to June 2004. Source: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=10&tableID=052 --- DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007

Hong Kong

Hong Kong is so cool! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.30.137.138 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

International rankings

Minor suggestion: Does anyone think the international rankings section should be separated into its own article, perhaps titled International rankings of Hong Kong? Several other countries already have such articles, listed in List of international rankings. Right now this information feels a little out of place in the main Hong Kong article. KeL 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful and encyclopedic to have this information on a separate article. However, it is of no use if it is just a reproduction of what is on the main article. It will have to be more comprehensive for it to be useful. Nonetheless, I think its still important to have some of the more recognized and important rankings on the Hong Kong article; as the Hong Kong article is meant to serve as an overview and it will also provide a good lead-in into the International rankings of Hong Kong. Luke! 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No. of islands?

What is the actual number of islands in Hong Kong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.125.84 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see Geography of Hong Kong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Geography section change

"Despite the territory's extensive wooded and ocean setting, environmental awareness is growing as Hong Kong's air ranks as one of the most polluted."

I think this line is somewhat confused. Does anyone have any objections to me changing it to:

"Despite the territory's extensive wooded and ocean setting, environmental awareness is low but growing as Hong Kong's air ranks as one of the most polluted."

Not perfect but better. Joepgray 08:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better. The best way to test is to do the edit and see if anyone reverts. --Der yck C. 09:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Images in History section

Recently the images in the History section were all made to align to the right. I know it was done in good faith, but unfortunately it created the problem of "image stackups" on wider screens, as described in Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. The standard practice for long sections with multiple images is to alternate between left and right alignment to avoid the above problem. So for now I am changing it back. Personally I think it also looks better that way. Does anyone have another idea? KeL 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I’ve re-positioned the images a bit to avoid both sides have images in the same paragraph, cause that will appear a little busy.--Alfeewusy 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up of Economy section by Kelw

Kelw - while I actually like your edit to the economy section, it would be nice if you discussed it next time before you do that kind of overhauling to a section. This article is at FA status and it would be nice for it to stay that way. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look back I agree it was indeed a large cleanup to perform without making a discussion here. I'll do that next time, sorry. It was just that the section was so filled with boosterism nonsense and randomly arranged information, it didn't really feel FA-class. In fact, I noticed some other sections have declined in quality since the article was awarded FA status. So I encourage the editors to discuss ways to improve the article before this becomes a problem. — Kelw (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. That section really didn't read like FA-class material until you cleaned it up. Nice work. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I revised the last paragraph of the economy section and took out some of the statements that needed referencing. If anybody can find sources to support what it claimed[2], please re-insert the information. I did a quick google search for Shanghai's per-capita GDP, and supposedly it just went past USD 7,000 last year. But this seems to contradict the CIA Factbook, which says that the per-capita GDP for China overall in 2006 was USD 7,600. Now unless the rest of China suddenly caught up with Shanghai economically and I missed the news, there's a discrepancy there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This reveals how ignorant some editors may happen to be. Nominal and PPP figures can be very different. - Privacy 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Front Image Replacement

Tried to change the the map into the night skyline of Hong Kong, several times using pictures from wikipedia, it got changed back. Just thinking it would be nice to have a good picture, instead of a boring map, since all the big city pages have a epic shot for their city.

Just some thoughts.

With regards,

Raidiant

The Helena May

Can someone take a look at Helena May and make some much needed improvements/updates? Thanks

Tom M. 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This request has also been posted at WikiProject Hong Kong.Luke! 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Images re-positioning in History Section

Due to the recent insertion of the memorial image in the History Section, it seems too much and caused an unreadable problem. So, I’ve removed one not too related image from this section, and I’ve re-positioned the images a bit to avoid it appears a little busy.--Alfeewusy 11:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the image arrangement that was in place for a long time before the war memorial image was added, which was when the whitespace problem began. I feel this is the most appropriate arragement, and certainly good enough for the article to get featured. I encourage editors to be careful with adding new pictures in the future. I've checked that this arrangement should not create any whitespace in the text, please let me know if it does on your display. — Kelw (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures

Am I the only one who thinks there are too many pictures on this article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And many of the image captions also need improvement. The problem is due to some editors adding their own photos recently. — Kelw (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions: The Hong Kong Observatory logo is probably not needed in the Climate section, as is the Hong Kong Park picture in the Geography section (the map is probably enough). The little picture of Donald Tsang in the Government section seems a bit in the way and may be recentism. I think it can be removed because there are already pictures of government buildings and political activity in the section that are more representative. The pictures of banknotes and coins in the Economy section are not that important and can be removed. I would also suggest getting rid of one of the pictures in the Culture section. — Kelw (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are too many pictures in this topic. On the other hand, I found "words" are too many and too long. What do you think? refer to the topic Canada and Singapore, banknotes and coins can be seen under the topic of economy. Somebody would like to know and figure out who the CE of Hong Kong is and thus the pic of Donald Tsang is quite necessary to put it for us to know. Why do you want to get rid of some pictures in the culture section? I didn't see any good reasons you provided. Waiting for your feedback! thanks!72.138.191.63 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo in the history section showing the monument to fallen soldiers should be removed. It's too big and there's already a photo about the Japanese occupation. Other than this, I think it's fine --UCLARodent 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I'm removing that picture. It's not a bad image, but it should probably be placed in a subarticle. — Kelw (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that other sections' pictures shouldn't be removed, cause appropriate images insertion can make balance to the long text. It just seems too many in the History section previously. But now is looking good after it has been restored. It's not a problem if there have text between two pictures as long as not both sides have images aligned in the same paragraph. Alfeewusy 05:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The War memorial image should remain. It is relevent as an encyclopaedic record of how those of all races who died under the Japanese are commemerated and of the fact that post 1997 that commemeration remains. PaddyBriggs 16:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying it is not relevent, but as the top of this discussion page reads, the article is intended only as an introduction, not for all issues related to Hong Kong. It is nice that you have taken this picture and uploaded it but consider placing it in a related page. In fact, an image similar to yours is already found in the Battle of Hong Kong article. — Kelw (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PaddyBriggs, please don't add that photo back...at least not yet. Let's defer to the community first to see if there's consensus. Although it's a nice photo, it is redundant (there's already a photo about the occupation). By all means, put it on the page for the Japanese Occupation or History of Hong Kong. But it doesn't belong in the History section of a GENERAL article of Hong Kong. One of your edits say that you want that photo to commemorate the fallen. That's a nice sentiment but this is an encyclopedia to display facts, not emotions or agendas. --UCLARodent 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably wrong content, or wrong ref

(discussion carried forward from zh-yue:Talk:香港, an ongoing translation of this page) From the geography section: "the territory has been called one of the greenest cities in Asia.[7]" Ref 7 does not give any supporting evidence of this claim. --Der yck C. 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there are too many unsourced boosterisms such as this one, and they tend to weaken the quality of the article. — Kelw (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

History Section is Shortened

By request, the history paragraphs are now shortened since the History of Hong Kong section is now completely redone with a framework from pre-historic all the way to the present 2007. Other reasons for change include

Things such as would-be proposals that never finalized should not be in the frontpage.

It is not right to make projections about 2047 in the history section. Wikipedia's policy of crystal ball into the future is not recommended.

Plenty of statistics showed mass migration happened year s before Tiananmen Square 1989. Overwhelming # of sources say handover panic was.

Most facts are moved to their respective pages, 80s, 90s etc.

Dates are now pretty much generic by year. There were huge discrepencies in listing some events by full date, english format, us format, short dates.

Grammar and spelling fixed. Every sentence shortened.

Previously events were not balanced. 5 or 6 sentences were dedicated to politics. 0 sentences on bird flu for example.

Benjwong 06:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some clean-up of your edits. A big blank space was left in the middle of the History section, because of where the images were placed. Please be careful with image placements in the future when you're shortening text. Also, some of the shortening you did made the statements confusing without further clarification, so I added some specific information back in. There were also some POV issues that were there before your edit, and I tried to take care of them too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I took this chance to add a paragraph on the 1967 riots. I'm surprised this wasn't in the section before, since it's probably the most important segment of Hong Kong's history after the handover and the Japanese occupation. — Kelw (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are still a lot of problems with balance. There is too much information on specific events after 1997; the airport alone occupied one paragraph. I took out the Disneyland paragraph because I really don't find that historically important. Even though this is just a summary, maybe there should be a few mentions of significant events in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. — Kelw (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening of the airport is arguably significant, as it's one of the most expensive public works in history, and the airport has been rated the number 1 in the world for a few years in a row. But maybe the thing to do is not to list significant events, but just to give a generalised view of the different decades and time periods. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed it out some more. I think depending on your discussion, any particular item can be considered "most important". It is still too long, technically any event should be 1 line. But I am really not sure how much more can be cut out. For the average non-HK citizen the 97 coverage was too detailed. It reads like 50% politics and treaties still. Benjwong 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job with the trimming. I think the overall length of the section is still acceptable, since it's only a bit longer than most of the other sections. Let's try to find the right balance first. And like you said, I think the post-97 coverage is too detailed. — Kelw (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Full name

The full long-form name of Hong Kong should be simply Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (in Chinese: 香港特別行政區). This is according to the CIA World Factbook. The text in each article of the Basic Law also uses "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Although "of the People's Republic of China" is often added when necessary, I don't think it's part of the full name itself. — Kelw (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

then why didn't you edit the conventional full name in the topic of Macau? 72.138.191.63 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

CIA didn't mean it is absolutely correct. On the hard cover of HKSAR passport, the full name of Hong Kong is HKSAR of PRC. Please also refer to [3]. For the CIA World Factbook, it also reveals the conventional full name of the Republic of China as "none" or Taiwan. Do you think CIA interprets that name correctly in this case? 72.138.191.63 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, the "of the PRC" is added when it's necessary to identify it as part of the PRC in international contexts. That doesn't mean it's part of the name itself. The ROC is a totally different case and not a good example because the United States follows the One China policy. The HKSAR name is no different from, for example, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region or Guangdong Province. You can always turn it into "Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of the PRC" or "Guangdong Province of the PRC", but that doesn't mean "of the PRC" is part of the name. Also, have a look at the text of the Basic Law, where each article mentions the HKSAR phrase. — Kelw (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Basic Law of Hong Kong, article always mentions the HKSAR because the full name is too long and it is not convinent to mention over and over again by using the full conventional name. The offical name for Hong Kong is HKSAR of PRC. Refer to the Basic Law of Hong Kong, you can see that from the Decree of the President of the People's Republic of China, the full name of HKSAR of PRC has been used. (I hereby promulgate the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, including Annex I, Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Annex II, Method for the Formation of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Its Voting Procedures, Annex III, National Laws to be Applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and designs of the regional flag and regional emblem of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which was adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on 4 April 1990 and shall be put into effect as of 1 July 1997.) [4] I am not going to explain anymore why province and autonomous region is different from SARs as I already did that hundred and thousand times. 72.138.191.63 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a point which you could all have missed. It is "conventional full name" not "official full name", so quoting from legal definitions would not be useful. --Der yck C. 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to revert again because I don't want to get into an edit war with User:72.138.191.63. But the CIA World Factbook is already quite an authoritative source. Yes, it does reflect the perspecitive of the US Government which is not always neutral (as in the case for the ROC), but in this case there is clearly no bias. The Factbook is updated every two weeks by State Department staff, so I doubt there is a mistake. And as I pointed out with Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, it also makes grammatical sense. — Kelw (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To User:72.138.191.63, your quote simply illustrates my point. The "of the PRC" phrase is part of the first sentence, not part of the HKSAR name. It means the same as saying "HKSAR belongs to the PRC". It's no different from saying "Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of the PRC" or "Guangdong Province of the PRC". The rest of your quote uses the HKSAR full name without the PRC. — Kelw (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If so, how could you explain the coat of arm? I am very glad but I hate China too and I support you put PRC away. I did it on the topic of Macau. Take a look! 72.138.191.63 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus has already come out - no PRC suffix. Isn't it? Moreover, I strongly recommend that 72.138.191.63 register an account so that the discussion can be carried out smoothly. --Der yck C. 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The official full name of Hong Kong is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China." It's true that in many contexts "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" or simply "Hong Kong" is used. But neither is the full name of Hong Kong. - Privacy 18:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please justify your point. Thanks! --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 01:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When I write a check to Inland Revenue, to pay my taxes, it is perfectly all right to write "Government of the HKSAR". DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007

Yes it's odd, unusual, and not quite logical, but yes, "of the People's Republic of China" is part of its full name. It is different from the autonomous regions or the provinces. Iianq 17:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You [5] said that already. SchmuckyTheCat

What do you mean? (DON'T forget the time stamp.) Iianq 09:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe Tibet Autonomous Region should be named Tibet Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China? Benjwong 13:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)