Jump to content

Talk:Hong Kong: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=y}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Article history
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 10
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Hong Kong/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Hong Kong|class=GA|importance=top|formerFA=yes}}
{{WikiProject China|cities=yes|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject Cities|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia|En-Hong Kong.ogg}}
{{VA|topic=Geography|level=3|class=GA}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Hong Kong}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=1 July 2004|oldid1=4422190|date2=1 July 2005|oldid2=17954419|date3=1 July 2006|oldid3=61565308|date4=23 August 2007|oldid4=153079591}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1=FAC
|action1date=2005-07-12
|action1date=12 July 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive1
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive1
|action1result=promoted
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=18676309
|action1oldid=18691250


|action2=FAR
|action2=FAR
|action2date=2008-07-07
|action2date=7 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hong Kong/archive1
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hong Kong/archive1
|action2result=removed
|action2result=removed
|action2oldid=224101192
|action2oldid=224160258


|action3=GAN
|action3=GAN
|action3date=2009-11-14
|action3date=14 November 2009
|action3link=Talk:Hong Kong/GA1
|action3link=Talk:Hong Kong/GA1
|action3result=listed
|action3result=listed
|action3oldid=325786748
|action3oldid=325826200


|action4=FAC
|action4=FAC
Line 52: Line 35:
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive1
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive1
|action6result=reviewed
|action6result=reviewed
|action6oldid=389239462
|action6oldid=389386803


|action7=FAC
|action7=FAC
Line 60: Line 43:
|action7oldid=392349486
|action7oldid=392349486


|action8=PR
|topic=Geography
|action8date=14:51, 18 June 2012
|maindate=2005-09-07
|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive2
|currentstatus=FFA/GA
|action8result=reviewed
}}
|action8oldid=497576263
{{British English|date=September 2010}}
{{Notice|{{Find sources}}}}
{{archives}}


|action9=GAR
== 5 Big Clans ==
|action9date=19:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
|action9link=Talk:Hong Kong/GA2
|action9result=kept
|action9oldid=559018414


|action10=FTC
In this article it states the 4 big clans. This is wrong and it is written in history there are 5 big clans. Which are: Tang, HAU, Liu, Man and Pang. This is mistake needs to be rectified. Poorly written History section. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:82.10.65.17|82.10.65.17]] ([[User talk:82.10.65.17|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.10.65.17|contribs]]) 2010-06-27T21:56:16</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
|action10date=06:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Hong Kong/archive1
|action10result=failed


|action11=PR
== Lead image ==
|action11date=1:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
|action11link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive3
|action11result=reviewed
|action11oldid=828994957


|action12=FAC
The current lead image is subtitled "View during the day from Victoria Peak". That is completely wrong. It is, instead, a view from Kowloon towards the Island.
|action12date=2018-04-21
|action12link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive5
|action12result=failed
|action12oldid=837415647


|action13 = FAC
That said, I too support reverting to the night-time skyline view from the Peak, looking east along the Island. Far more striking image. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.200.236.70|121.200.236.70]] ([[User talk:121.200.236.70|talk]]) 07:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|action13date = 2018-07-31
|action13link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive6
|action13result = failed
|action13oldid = 852495549


|action14=WPR
[[File:Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg|100px|right|thumb|Skyline]]
|action14date=19:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
[[File:TE-Collage_Hong_Kong.png|100px|right|thumb|Collage]]
|action14link=WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
[[User:NInTeNdO]] insists on replacing the [[:File:Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg|skyline image]] with [[:File:TE-Collage_Hong_Kong.png|this mediocre collage]]. I consider it to be way too tall and the whitespaces are out of place. Since NInTeNdO keeps replacing the picture I'd like to hear some other opinions. [[User:Jan Hofmann|— Jan Hofmann]] ([[User talk:Jan Hofmann|talk]]) 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
|action14result=Copyedited
:Hello Mr. Hofmann. That skyline is a little bit old. Collages are modern and many articles use them. Just view [[New York City]], [[London]], [[Tokyo]], [[Istanbul]], [[Singapore]], [[Brussels]], [[Beijing]], [[Karachi]], [[Bombay]], [[Delhi]], [[Bangkok]], [[Dubai]], [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth]], [[Copenhagen]], [[Helsinki]], [[Riga]] (and there are many more cities which have a collage). But just Hong Kong doesn't have one, it's a very famous global city and because that I placed a collage in this article. How do you think about it now, Mr. Hofmann? Kind regards, [[User:NInTeNdO|NInTeNdO]] ([[User talk:NInTeNdO|talk]]) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
|action14oldid=864522854
::I don't mind having a collage at all, my point is that yours isn't good enough. It's 1) too tall and 2) the whitespaces make it look very unprofessional (compare to [[:File:NYC_Montage_12_by_Jleon.jpg]]). Removing the lowest picture from it would be a start. [[User:Jan Hofmann|— Jan Hofmann]] ([[User talk:Jan Hofmann|talk]]) 13:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
:::That is a kind of software which is professional, like Inkscape and Adobe Photoshop. You can't make a collage like that one. TheEmirr makes many beautiful collages, like the one of London and [[Ankara]]. [[User:NInTeNdO|NInTeNdO]] ([[User talk:NInTeNdO|talk]]) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I don't understand what you're trying to say. If he can't make good enough collages then we can't use them in our articles. Your opinion of them as being beautiful is subjective, I think they're mediocre at best. [[User:Jan Hofmann|— Jan Hofmann]] ([[User talk:Jan Hofmann|talk]]) 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Can you help to make the collage good? And too the one of Paris? I hope so. [[User:NInTeNdO|NInTeNdO]] ([[User talk:NInTeNdO|talk]]) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


|action15=PR
I'd like to point out that a number of images in the collage actually exist as thumbnails in the article. For example, the Avenue of Stars picture, the Government House picture and the Buddha picture appear both in the collage and the Hong Kong article. I do not see why the images have to be repetitive. I'd prefer reverting to the skyline image. And please kindly observe the [[WP:3RR]] and stop [[WP:edit warring|edit warring]]. [[User:Craddocktm|Craddocktm]] ([[User talk:Craddocktm|talk]]) 15:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
|action15date=06:44:36 03 November 2018 (UTC)
:I think the collage looks ok (I think the white space looks fine, but I agree it's a bit tall), but I think Craddock is right, the collage shouldn't use the same pictures found elsewhere in the article. [[User:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]] ([[User talk:TastyCakes|talk]]) 15:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
|action15link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive4
*I support reverting to skyline. I don't like the collage at all. It looks far too busy - there are too many elements, making each one too small to appreciate. And then, the transparent part in between the individual images has this blurred edge, which makes the whole thing look fuzzy. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
|action15result=not reviewed
|action15oldid=939002487


|topic=Geography
::Agree. And the dimension of the collage should be somewhat close to [[:File:NYC_Montage_12_by_Jleon.jpg]], square shape can do as well. Kennedy Town and Avenue of Stars are omittable, I would suggest replacing them with train of [[MTR]] or [[Star Ferry]]. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
|maindate=September 7, 2005
|currentstatus = GA
|otd1date=2004-07-01|otd1oldid=4422190|otd2date=2005-07-01|otd2oldid=17954419|otd3date=2006-07-01|otd3oldid=61565308|otd4date=2013-08-29|otd4oldid=570492143|otd5date=2015-08-29|otd5oldid=678097314|otd6date=2017-08-29|otd6oldid=797795819|otd7date=2018-08-29|otd7oldid=857084580
|otd8date=2022-08-29|otd8oldid=1107056719
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Hong Kong|importance=Top|formerFA=yes}}
{{WikiProject China|cities=yes |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Cities|core=y|capital=y}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}
}}
{{Hong Kong English}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
:I'm ok with the collage as long as each image satisfy [[WP:IUP]] and captions + alt text (feature article with collage such as [[San Francisco]] provides good guidances) <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize=50K

|counter=13
:Can I make a new collage of better quality with wider dimensions?--[[User:Dolphin Jedi|Dolphin Jedi]] ([[User talk:Dolphin Jedi|talk]]) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
|algo=old(30d)
::can you? you certainly ''can''. but ''should'' you? well, the issue is that it would break the standard of many city articles to have an excessively large collage, so be wary of that limit. --[[User:HXL49|HXL]][[User talk:HXL49|'s Roundtable]], and [[Special:Contributions/HXL49|Record]] 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
|archive=Talk:Hong Kong/Archive %(counter)d

|archiveheader={{Aan}}
*I support a mix of various pictures that is clean, and better looking than the skyline. Skyline really is hard to see, and plus, if you can add MORE pics, it will be more diversified, just like HK really is.... Can you make a new colleage with less clutter? Too much is too much. Just 5-6 pics is good. You know what I mean?[[User:Phead128|Phead128]] ([[User talk:Phead128|talk]]) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
|minthreadstoarchive=1

|minthreadsleft=3
== Weihaiwei ==
}}

{{Top 25 Report|Sep 28 2014 (19th)|Aug 11 2019 (13th)}}{{Annual readership}}
Is there any reason to include the information in the lead section? See [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&action=historysubmit&diff=390141791&oldid=390018035 these edits]. I reverted it back to the way it was since the new info was unsourced and I could only find little information linking [[Weihaiwei]] with Hong Kong. <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 03:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:Tavatar, was there any reason not to include the information about Weihaiwei? For a long time in living memory, Hong Kong actually was a British colony, whereas Weihaiwei had become a long forgotten ex-British colony. But now they are both ex-British colonies and they were the only two British colonies in China. So I can see no harm in mentioning Weiheiwei in connection with the fact that Hong Kong was a British colony. Also, you mentioned about none of my information being sourced. Was any of it doubted? We only need sources for information that is contested. And if it was only the Weiheiwei bit that you were worried about, then why did you do a wholesale revert? Anyway, can you now give a good reason why Weihaiwei shouldn't be mentioned in conjunction with the fact that Hong Kong is one of two ex-British colonies in China, because I intend to re-revert your reversion. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 10:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:: I agree with Tavatar. It makes no sense to include Weihaiwei in the lead section, which should be reserved for the most important information regarding Hong Kong. While I appreciate that Weihaiwei may be relevant to Hong Kong in the sense that they were both former British colonies, there is no justification whatsoever to include it in the lead section. However, I consider it may be appropriate to mention Weihaiwei (very briefly, in a line) in the History section. Moreover, the policy of [[WP:V|verifiability]] is one of the five pillars and should be respected. Tavatar is indeed challenging your assertion, and therefore, there is a genuine need for sources. I would also like to remind you that Tavatar is trying to get this article promoted to FA status - and addition of unsourced materials does not help that.[[User:Craddocktm|Craddocktm]] ([[User talk:Craddocktm|talk]]) 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Forget about the FA status. Article improvement is much more important, and this article is not owned by the wiki-Hong Kong project. It seems that you both have a very narrow focus as regards the purpose of the article. The idea of an encyclopaedia article is to cater for as wide a perspective as possible, and it's important that readers are made aware early on that there was a lesser known British colony in China as well as Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong was only one of two former British colonies in China. As you can see in the Weihaiwei article, it mentions that Hong Kong was the other British colony in China. Most people would of course know that, but not so many would know about Weiheiwai, so it's even more important that we reciprocate by getting a link to Weihaiwei when people are reading about Hong Kong, because Weihaiwei is the other lesser known part of that same branch of history. Encyclopaediae are for widening peoples' knowledge. Are we trying to promote knowledge or are we trying to hide knowledge?

As regards the other points which you disapproved of, let's go over them one by one.

(1) Did you object to mention of the fact that Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity? You have removed that key piece of information so I want to know why. It is not sufficient to state lack of sources as a grounds for removing material. If you are in doubt, then put in a request for a source. But few people are likely to doubt that specific piece of information.

(2) Did you object to mention of the Treaty of Nanking 1842 and the Opium War?

(3) Did you object to mention of the fact that Kowloon was added in 1860?

(4) Did you object to mention of the the fact that the New Territories were obtained under a 99 year lease in 1898 which was the same year that Weihaiwei was obtained?

You removed all these key pieces of information and I want to know why. I don't want to hear about sources or FA status. We'll get sources when needs be. Meanwhile I just want to hear a good reason as to why you don't want to have these pieces of information in the article. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

: What the purpose of an encyclopedic article is can vary from person to person, and it suffices to say that I do not agree completely with your proposition that our objective is to cater for as wide a perspective as possible. This purpose is infeasible - adopting this purpose would open the floodgate and allow an awful lot of information to be included in the lead section. I do not think it is wise to engage in a debate as to what the objectives are - that would never end - rather I would look to Wikipedia policy.
: Given that we are concerned as to how the lead should be written, why not look at [[WP:LEAD]]? It says, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its '''most important''' aspects." The word "'''concise'''" has also appeared for several times.
: Therefore, would you mind telling us the importance of [[Weihaiwei]] in relation to Hong Kong? If the only importance is that they were both British colonies in China, I fail to see sufficient importance for it to appear in the lead. Certainly many cities share characteristics with Hong Kong. Macau is the only other Chinese SAR along with Hong Kong - but it doesn't appear in the lead. Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong all belong to the Pearl River Delta - but the first two cities do not get mentioned in the lead either. There is also no place for the other three of the [[Four Asian Tigers]]. If we agree with your request, then it follows that we should include those cities as well, and it is easily foreseeable that the lead would no longer be concise.
:The only relation between Hong Kong and Weihaiwei is that they share a common characteristic. In my view, that is insufficient to mention Weihaiwai in the lead.
:I would expect the lead to mention information that is directly related to Hong Kong. Therefore, I consider that there is an arguable case for you to include point 1-4 in the lead (but the reference to 1898 should not, in my view, mention Weihaiwei). But I wish to hear from others before commenting any further.[[User:Craddocktm|Craddocktm]] ([[User talk:Craddocktm|talk]]) 20:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:David Tombe, first of all, I wasn't saying that the facts you added are wrong. It was just in the wrong section. The [[WP:LEAD]] section is intended to be an inviting summary for the whole article. The dates and details you added were already in the [[Hong Kong#Colonial]] section, which I thought was too much information for a lead section when you start listing out all the date. Plus you added the Weihaiwei details without ever mentioning it again in the rest of the articles. If you mentioned something in the lead section, you need to explain it further in the rest of the article. Adding onto the fact that the info was unsourced and we are in FA review right now, so we are pretty sensitive about unsourced information, it was just easier to resolve this matter by reverting the edits for now.
: I looked up more into the connection between [[Weihaiwei]] and Hong Kong after you added the information, the only similarity I found is that they were both British colony. Weihaiwei was loaned for 32 years. Most of the information tends link it to Germany and Russia rather than Britain. I can only see it being briefly mentioned in the [[Hong Kong#Colonial]] section. It's true that both [[New Territories]] of Hong Kong and Weihaiwei were handed over to Britain on 1898, but Hong Kong was signed over through [[Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory]] and Weihaiwei was signed over through [[:zh:訂租威海衛專條|訂租威海衛專條 [Convention for Weihaiwei]]]. Page 152–153 of [http://books.google.com/books?id=7lSf1DUwcsgC this book] talks about Weihaiwei. <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

::The point is that Hong Kong is famous solely because it was a British colony. And there may be people who are interested in British colonial history in China who come to the Hong Kong article, not intending to read anything about Hong Kong at all, but only to see if they can find out if Hong Kong was the only British colony in China. An introduction needs to have a simple statement to the effect that Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China, the other being Weihaiwei.

::Anyway, I'm beginning to see what's been going on here. There is an enormous section on Hong Kong's pre-colonial history and it was much bigger than the section on the colonial period, at least until I altered the titles a bit. That indicates that something is seriously wrong. Any history of Hong Kong that is worth recording only began in 1841, but it looks as though somebody has been trying to play the colonial period down and trying very hard to make a big story about the pre-colonial period in which absolutely nothing of note ever happened.

::You guys need to get a sense of proportion before you think about putting this article forward for FA status. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

::: When you compare the time range from 35,000 BC to 1800s with a mere 100 year of colonial history. Proportion is fairly self-explanatory. If readers want to dive deep into the colonial history of Hong Kong, they would be reading [[History of Hong Kong (1800s–1930s)]] and [[British Hong Kong]], since Hong Kong is now a [[Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China]]. <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 23:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to get a better sense of proportion. The 36,000 years prior to 1841 could be summed up in two words. Fishing village. Hong Kong as a concept only began in 1841. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:No offence, but your assertions demonstrate strong [[WP:systemic bias|systemic bias]]. Hong Kong as a concept to Westerners only began in 1841, but it is truly offensive to assert that pre-colonial history is not worth recording, and that nothing notable occurred before 1841. For example, [[Sung Wong Toi]] is a relic in Hong Kong paying tribute to the last two emperors of the [[Song Dynasty]] who, being pursued by the Mongols, fled all the way to Hong Kong. And Hong Kong is famous SOLELY because she was a British colony? If that is true Weihaiwei would be as famous as Hong Kong. Hong Kong became famous because of her economic achievements and also because of the much publicized [[Sino-British Joint Declaration]]. After ceasing to be a British colony she continues to be famous as an international financial centre. At any rate, people are interested in many Hong Kong related topics, which are normally dealt with in the See Also section rather than in the lead. The mere fact that some people may be interested in a peripherally related topic certainly does not justify its inclusion in the lead. If you are so interested in promoting [[British colonial history in China]] I propose you create a new article on this.[[User:Craddocktm|Craddocktm]] ([[User talk:Craddocktm|talk]]) 07:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Craddock, I didn't remove any information from the article. I inserted two pieces of information which have been opposed by editors who seem to think that the colonial history of Hong Kong is not the most important aspect of its history. For whatever reason these two pieces of information are being kept out of the article,

(1) Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity,

(2) Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China, the other being [[Weihai|Weihaiwei]].

[[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:neither of these two facts belong in the lead section. I put "in perpetuity" in the treaty section. I don't see where in this article, which is almost completely devoted to summarizing other articles, the Weihaiwei mention belongs. It's a really minor point not fit for a summary. I suggest finding another article, or suggesting a way to fit it in here.
:The colonial history of Hong Kong is '''not''' the most important aspect of this topic. Hong Kong was an international curiosity (all those Chinamen acting like Brits, how cute) and is since an international trade and finance center with its own unique culture. The present wouldn't happen without the past, but the past is not the most important. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

Schmucky, You say that [[Weihai|Weihaiwei]] is only a minor point which shouldn't be mentioned in the article. However, encyclopaediae are for the purpose of educating people. Most people have never heard of Weihaiwei before and so it is important that we draw it to the attention of the readers in connection with a parallel topic. We have an article on Weihaiwei but it needs to be advertised in a parallel topic such as Hong Kong which is much more famous. The only reason that I can think why anybody would not want to mention Weihaiwei in the Hong Kong article is because they don't want other people to know about it. And why would somebody actively want to hide this obscure piece of knowledge? Certainly not because it's obscure.

On the reasons that you have given, you could go now to the [[Weihai|Weihaiwei]] article and remove the reference in the lead to Hong Kong and rationalize that there is no need to have Hong Kong mentioned in the lead.

The colonial era in Hong Kong lasted from 1841 until 1997. After that, nothing much has changed. Before that it was only a fishing village. Yet somebody has managed to make a huge story out of the pre-colonial era. And when you actually read that story, you can see that it is largely only bits of history from the South China region generally, where Hong Kong later happened to be situated. Very little of that information is directly relevant to Hong Kong as such, and what is relevant is hardly of note. Yet, by contrast, the colonial era is only given a short section. Then we have other sections under other titles which are also part of the colonial era but labelled as if they were different from the colonial era. The colonial era would in fact be the umbrella title for all of those subsequent eras up until 1997. I tried to correct that, but it has been undone again. Why? It is clear to me that somebody is trying to play down the colonial era and trying and make out that the major part of Hong Kong's importance is independent of the colonial era, and that the colonial era was just a small glitch in Hong Kong's long history.

If that is what is going on here, it would explain the reticence to mention that Britain had another colony in China. Thankfully, alot of readers can see right through this kind of strategy. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 11:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:*Mmm. I thought I heard the sound of a Brit colonialist talking... Hong Kong is only well known because the Brits occupied it; it had no history before that, and has no future after that. I don't think any more needs to be said about where you appear to be coming from. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 15:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously. [[Weihai]] is historical trivia at best in the context of Hong Kong history. There is no documented influence on Hong Kong exerted by Weihai and there is no documented direct relations between the two during the colonial era. The two cities didn't even come under British control at the same time or under the same circumstances. These are the reasons why Weihai is never mentioned when one reads Hong Kong history in books and other publications. This is a top-level article about Hong Kong and it should only include the most notable facts. Under David Tombe's logic, this article would become an article about British colonial history and include any and all historical trivia, because that seems to be his definition of "educating people".

That being said, however, I would love to see an article specifically on British colonialism in Asia. Maybe David Tombe can initiate this. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 13:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:David, this is a [[WP:SUMMARY]] article. I haven't looked at the history section in a while, maybe somebody has consciously re-arranged it to lessen the importance of the colonial era. Or maybe they haven't. Either way, there simply is not enough room in '''this''' article for the kind of "parallel information" of the level of minutae you insist on. Every section of this article is a summary of a wider article that goes into more depth. Put your information in a different article, nobody is trying to hide it or censor it, there is just an editorial decision that it doesn't merit the importance to be included here.
:Declaring "nothing much has changed" is defining hogwash, which is a nicer term what I wish to say. You've got blinders on, and that is why this is a community writing project and not any single vision. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

== Edits in History section ==

David Tombe, what are you doing? Your re-sectioning edits got rid of an overall section called "History" for the historical content of the article, and it also got rid of the link to the main [[History of Hong Kong]] article. I've reverted. Please discuss before you edit, especially since we are undergoing the FA nomination process. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:I hadn't overlooked the fact that the link to the main history section was removed and I was intending to restore it within the next half hour. The rationale behind my edits was to properly group the sections into three eras. The way that you have just reverted to makes it look as though the colonial era was just one small era amongst many. It overlooks the fact that everything right up until 1997 was still the colonial era. The proper title for the events in the mid-nineteenth century would either be 'nineteenth century' or 'The Arrival of the British'.

:I am happy enough to leave your revert in place, in order to avoid a problem over the link to the main history section. But you need to change the title of the first sub-section. You cannot call that first sub-section 'The colonial era' because it is only the beginning of the colonial era. It should be called something like 'The arrival of the British', or 'The beginning of the colonial era', or 'The Opium War and the Treaty of Nanking'. It cannot be called 'The colonial era' as if that small section embodied the colonial era in its entirety. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Mostly I just wanted you to discuss before making these types of changes. At this point it's best to leave edits to the task of addressing FA nomination issues. I do have a suggestion in reorganising those subsections though - how about we get rid of the subsection heading for WW2, and have one subsection for the colonial era? Then the history section would end up with three subsections: Pre-colonial, Colonial, and Post-1997. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, I would agree that the WWII sub-section is disproportionate. I was aiming for three eras myself. WWII can just be discussed inside a general colonial era sub-section.[[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::Ok. Actually I wanted to wait for Tavatar to comment on this and see if he agrees, since he is the one that's taken the unofficial lead in editorial fixes to push the article to FA. Hopefully he has no objections. Please just be patient with your edits during the FA nomination. I've had experience pushing articles to FA and GA statuses before. I find it better to have one editor leading the editorial effort. I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the article at all, but the edits you've been doing are not minor. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 19:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm ok with the three sub-sections idea, I think it makes the History section flows better. <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 19:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you're doing FA, I'll clear off until after the FA is finished. But I want to leave you with one thought. The first line in the main article states that Hong Kong is one of two special administrative regions in China, the other being Macau. You drew attention to Macau because you wanted the readers to know that there is another one that is not so well known. And rightly so. That's how knowledge gets expanded. And the exact same goes for [[Weihai|Weihaiwei]]. It was a lesser known British colony in China and so an opprtunity should be sought to link it within the text. It doesn't have to be in the lead, but I'm sure that if there is a will, there will be a way to weave it in, just as you have woven Macau in. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:I wouldn't mind if we actually got rid of that little tidbit about there being two SARs, with Macau being the other. The article doesn't even bring up Macau again except in the geographical context. It's irrelevant to have this in the lead. Mentioning Macau is more relevant to [[Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China]] just as mentioning [[Weihai]] is more relevant to an article on British colonial history. But speaking of Macau, on an off topic note, I would love to see an article on the relationship between Hong Kong and Macau. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, That's interesting that you would like to drop the mention of Macau in the lead whereas I am all in favour of keeping it. In fact I'd be in favour of getting a mention for [[Lüshunkou District|Port Arthur]], [[Guangzhouwan|Kwanchowan]], and [[Kiautschou Bay concession|Kiaochow]] as well. None of these names should of course dominate the article, but it is only fair to inform the reader that there were other European colonies in China as well as Hong Kong. Alot of readers will probably not know this, and so an opportunity should be taken to give them a link to expand their knowledge. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:The lead should focus on the present, not the past. I'm on the fence about Macau. If there were more SAR, I'd be against it being mentioned where it is but with only two it pairs up two very unique territories. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

:The reason Macau was mentioned is because there are only two [[Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China|SARs]] in this whole world, and Hong Kong is currently a SAR. British colonies are different because there were [[:File:The British Empire.png|this many]]. <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but only two in China. Two SAR's and two ex-British colonies in China. I think you guys have got to realize that the menu needs to be diversified somewhat. Yes, it's an article about Hong Kong and so most of the information should be about Hong Kong. But it's an encyclopaedia article and we need to provide links to related articles. Somebody who comes to read the Hong Kong article because they are interested in Hong Kong as an SAR should be offered the choice to view an article about the other SAR (Macau). And somebody who comes to read the Hong Kong article because they are interested in Hong Kong as an ex-British colony should be offered the choice to view an article about the other ex-British colony (Weihaiwei). It's like saying "So you're interested in Hong Kong? Maybe then you'd be interested in reading about Weihaiwei or Macau too. Here are the links." The typical reader response may be "That's interesting. I never knew about Macau, I'll take a look", or "I never knew about Weihaiwei, let me take a look and see what that was all about". That's the attitude which I was trying to promote. I was trying to promote a wider awareness around the subject from the particular to the general. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:No offense here, but I'm not sure if you are aware of this policy [[WP:NOTADVERTISING]]... <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 00:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Tavatar that's right. No advertising. But I wasn't talking about that kind of advertising. I was talking about advertising other wikipedia articles for the purpose of promoting knowledge. That was a bit of a play on words. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

David Tombe, I definitely see where you are coming from. But I see this issue in a larger context of what is relevant enough to include in the article. You can basically apply the logic you are demonstrating with every single detail about Hong Kong that is mentioned in the article. Maybe a reader came to this article because he is interested in the Opium Wars. So exactly how much information should be provided on specifically the Opium Wars? Or maybe a reader came because he is interested in Sino-British relations. The amount of information to include and exclude on this article has sort of evolved over the years as editors come and go. As to why Weihai is not mentioned while Macau is, I can only guess this is because Weihai's existence as a colonial territory is nowhere near as notable and documented in literature about Hong Kong history. Having said all this, however, I hope I haven't given you the impression I am completely against including information about Weihai in the article. If there is a good way to insert information about it into the current flow of the content, I would not be against it. But I do think in the overall scheme of things, it's not a big issue and certainly not something that's worthy of a long argument over. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 03:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:HongQiGong, Let's first look at the issue of Macau being mentioned in the first sentence of the article. I don't know who did that or how long it has been there for, but I am all in favour of its retention. It's a fair guess that the person who wrote that wanted to immediately draw the readers attention to the existence of a parallel topic. It was like saying 'if you're interested in this article, you might also want to look at the Portuguese alternative'. My guess is that the reason why Weihaiwei has never been mentioned so far is because nobody has ever thought to do so. It is not a subject which is widely known about. But you should not take the fact that it is not widely known about as a reason for ensuring that it continues to not be widely known about. It is an obscure topic which is of note, and its existence should be advertised when the opportunity appropriately arises. That can be done with a simple wording such as 'Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China, the other being Weihaiwei'. The blue link to Weihaiwei can then be followed or not followed at the discretion of the reader. It is not for the editors here to decide that Weihaiwei is not interesting enough or not important enough to be advertised in the context. Hong Kong is famous because until recently it was a British colony in China. People who come to read the Hong Kong article are entitled to leave and report to their colleagues the fact that they have just found out that Britain used to have another colony in China further up the coast. That is what an encylopaedia is all about.

:If you think that a simple four word allusion to Weihaiwei is too much for the article to cope with then you seriously need to start thinking about trimming that pre-colonial section down. The pre-colonial section could be reduced to a few lines something like, 'prior to the arrival of the British, Hong Kong island was largely deserted.' Then you could recount the tale about those two guys who fled there during the Song Dynasty, as a means of getting the locality recorded in the pre-colonial history era and showing that something happened on the territory which is now in Hong Kong. You need to try and put yourself into the position of a typical reader and try and imagine what kind of facts they will find interesting. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 12:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::That's just it - the fact that Weihai's colonial period is not widely known is precisely why it should be kept off. It's not about whether or not that factoid is "interesting". We're supposed to reflect published materials. If it was a notably relevant point in Hong Kong history, it would have been added (and kept) by now, because that would be reflected in the sources that editors have used for the article. This article has existed for nine years. About the pre-colonial period in Hong Kong history - maybe some of those details should be deleted, and maybe not. But as a whole, there ''has'' been plenty of study on pre-colonial Hong Kong. On the other hand, Weihai is a lot more relevant to articles on British colonialism than in the context of Hong Kong and Hong Kong history, but it's never even mentioned in [[British Empire]]! Now I have never worked on that article, but I have to wonder if, ''it'' got elevated to FA status without ever mentioning Weihai, then why should it be added to ''this'' article? [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 12:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, You seem to think that the fact that Weihaiwei's colonial period is not widely known is precisely why it shouldn't be mentioned. That is rather presumptuous. I would accept ignorance as an excuse for lack of inclusion. But once attention has been drawn to the subject and a concerted effort is being made to keep the subject hidden, then we move out of the realms of ignorance and into the realms of censorship. Hong Kong is famous because it was a British colony in China. Weihaiwei is not famous, but it was also a British colony in China. So shouldn't the readers be entitled to know, when reading about Hong Kong, that Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China? The only reason why anybody would want to hide mention of Weihaiwei is because they are uncomfortable about Hong Kong's colonial connections and the last thing that they want is for it to be known that Britain had another colony in China further up the coast. And the fact that the Hong Kong article contains so much empty details in a long pre-colonial section indicates that I am correct in believing that somebody has been involved in abusing the Hong article as a means of pushing a point of view. I read through the pre-colonial sub-section. Most of it was about general Chinese matters and not specifically about Hong Kong. I must have been nearly half way through the section before I came across a relevant fact, that being that at some point in history a school was opened in what is now part of the New Territories. Hardly a notable fact. That sub-section on the pre-colonial era looks like something that would be handed in for a written assignment in which somebody was tasked to write as much as they could about something that there was nothing to write about. We've all had to do those kinds of assignments at some stage and we all know the art of drawing out long sentences that say nothing. And that's what the pre-colonial era sub-section looks like.

There is a group of you here who are collectively determining the contents of this article, and I notice that the article is semi-protected. This is a classic case of 'consensus' winning through 'collective ownership'. And since wikipedia allows this state of affairs to occur, I will leave you all to it. But don't think that other readers can't see through exactly what is going on here. The second sentence in the introduction reads ''"it (Hong Kong) is renowned for its expansive skyline and deep natural harbour".'' This is a classic piece of subtle history revisionism. The truth is that it is renowned because it was a British colony. And Macau is renowned because it was a Portuguese colony and not because it is an SAR. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
*I've been watching from the wings, and think it's now time to wade in: For me, it's clear that Macao should be mentioned in the article, and Weihaiwei not. I think it may sound like a great idea to put 'interesting' stuff in an article, in the hope that it will "build the web", but the connection is too contrived. It's just too much of ''un fol éspoir'' because we make connections which are 'relevant' and 'germane'. AFAICT, the Weihaiwei connection seems to me to be irrelevant, and too remote to justify any mention in this article. Sure, why not in the article about British Empire? but here, I feel it violates[[WP:TRIVIA]], and the discussion along the lines of inclusion is going too far. It's not within the scope of this article to develop the theme of British colonial era in Asia, so it would violate [[WP:Coatrack]], which I know is only an essay. But so what? Macau is different. Macao and Hong Kong are neighbours, and their people are close cousins. Their colonial eras overlap considerably, and their economies and people are closely intertwined. [[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
**Right, even as I think we should just exclude Macau (unless we actually expand upon HK's connection with it as another SAR), I do think there is a stronger case for its inclusion than for Weihai's inclusion. There is an overlap and mutual influence in the way that transfer of sovereignty back to China is conducted in the two cities. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 15:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
***yes, anything mentioned in the lede ought to be developed in the body. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe, I and others have repeatedly mentioned the irrelevance of Weihai as why it has been excluded. The only common thread they have is that they were both British colonies at one point. That is trivial. But I guess I can't change your mind if you choose to believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on here. You are not the first, and will not be the last, to huff and puff about wanting to include some trivial content. If there is consensus to include it, it will be included. But so far I believe you are the only editor in the article's nine-year history to argue for its inclusion. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:HongQiGong, The common thread is that they were both British colonies in China, and the only two British colonies in China. That is not a trivial linkage. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::It's not trivial in articles about the British Empire. But it is trivial in a top level article on Hong Kong. Weihai had no influence on Hong Kong. It was not taken by the British at the same time or under the same circumstances. It was not handed back to China at the same time or under the same circumstances. There weren't even direct relations between the two. If the only common thread is that they were both British colonies in China, that is the very definition of trivial. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Confucius, I didn't say that Hong Kong had no future post 1997. I did said that it had no past of any note prior to 1841. And you can't make any deductions about who might be a British colonialist on the basis of any of this. I have opposed revisionism on wikipedia across quite a wide range of topics. And clearly this article has been in the hands of a group who have been trying to re-write history. I am only pointing the fact out and I will now leave my comments to this extent on the review page. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::HongQiGong, You're still trying very hard to paint a picture of no commonality between Hong Kong and Weihaiwei. I'll read you a quote from page 158 of "British Mandarins and Chinese Reformers (The British Administration of Weihaiwei (1898-1930) and the Territory's return to Chinese Rule" by Pamela Atwell.

::''The propaganda campaign against the British continued throughout 1929 and another alarming article was reprinted from a Chinese journal in the Shanghai Morning Post in August. This particular author again insisted upon Weihaiwei's unconditional return to China, but went even further in calling to attention the similarity between this issue and that of the British presence at Hong Kong. It was suggested that Great Britain should also be expected to withdraw from the latter in the near future. The vastly greater importance of Hong Kong to British commercial and military interests made this an especially disturbing point of view and an underlying concern throughout the Weihaiwei negotiations.''

::It's not as if I was asking you to make a link to the [[Jamaica]] colony. Weihaiwei could be mentioned and linked in the section that deals with the negotiations for the handover of Hong Kong. It could be mentioned as an earlier precedent. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Again let me reiterate that I am not completely oppose to Weihai's inclusion. But what you've quoted is in the context of Weihai's history. Weihai was never mentioned in the negotiations for Hong Kong's return. This is the point you seem to be missing - Weihai's history has nothing to do with Hong Kong itself even though it is relevant in articles about the British Empire. The information you want to insert is not about Hong Kong. It's about the British Empire. The two are not the same. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 18:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, What I quoted shows the strong similarity of circumstances as between Hong Kong and Weihaiwei. You can mention the Weihaiwei rendition treaty of 1930 as a precedent in the section about the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. Nobody here is talking about Kenya or Jamaica. [[User:David Tombe|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe|talk]]) 19:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:If there was really a "strong similarity", Weihai would have been a big part of the negotiations for Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule. But it wasn't even mentioned. Anyway, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
*Commonality is great, but it does not define whether one subject should be mentioned and linked to in a WP article. Just because cities are in the same country, or two people born on the same date is not enough reason for them to be mentioned in each other's article (maybe some other, like the date article). You have failed to demonstrate relevance. Even if relevant, any mention must conform to [[WP:N]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. Kindly stop the rhetoric. [[WP:AGF|Accusing]] us presently assembled of [[WP:OWN|owning the article]] and being 'revisionists' just because we don't agree with you will not get you anywhere. This discussion is getting stale so will be my last word for now. Seek a [[WP:3O|third opinion]] if you must. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 01:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

:Here's a quote from Jimbo at the [[WP:UNDUE]] section, "''If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.''" This description applies to how a link of [[Weihaiwei]] should be included in the Lead section. Potentially, I could see Weihaiwei being mentioned in a sentence within the British colonial era section after some careful reorganizing of the current information. <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 03:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Macao should be mentioned, but not Weihaiwei. Seriously, that is just unnecessary information that would clutter the HK article. It's already pretty full of detail as it is for veteran Hong Kong acquaintances to look at. Further adding irrelevant details like Weihaiwei is redundant, unnecessary, and the vast majority of viewers of the HK article page is just looking for a brief summary about HK, seriously.[[User:Phead128|Phead128]] ([[User talk:Phead128|talk]]) 05:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

== Education ==

The current lead and the education section say that Hong Kong's education system "loosely follows the English system". That used to be a very true statement, but alas, no longer. In 2009 the government implemented the [[334 Scheme]], otherwise known as the New Senior Secondary curriculum, which provides for 3 years of junior secondary schooling, 3 years of senior secondary education, and 4 years of tertiary education. The HKCEE and HKAL will be abolished and replaced by one public exam, to be taken by students in the sixth year of their secondary education. Here's some official information: [http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2063&langno=1]. I am wondering how we should amend the article to reflect the change. Since the new scheme has been introduced for only a short time, I reckon there is no need for a drastic rewrite, although the new scheme has to be given due coverage. [[User:Craddocktm|Craddocktm]] ([[User talk:Craddocktm|talk]]) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
* Too true. The very thought crossed my mind when looking at the article this morning. Perhaps someone who knows enough about it (ie not me) should do the honours. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 14:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
**Perhaps we could reword it to something like "Prior to 2009, (it was this). After the implementation of 334 Scheme, (it changed to that)" <i>[[User:Tavatar|Ta-Va-Tar]]</i> <small>([[User talk:Tavatar|discuss]]–[[Special:Contributions/Tavatar|?]])</small> 18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
: But still the new Diploma of Secondary Education qualifications is having an equivalence scale with the English A-levels, as the HKALE does. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Desvoeuxrdwest |Desvoeuxrdwest ]] ([[User talk:Desvoeuxrdwest |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Desvoeuxrdwest |contribs]]) 09:48, 23 October 2010 </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Anthem ==

Hong Kong does not have any anthem of its own. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Desvoeuxrdwest|Desvoeuxrdwest]] ([[User talk:Desvoeuxrdwest|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Desvoeuxrdwest|contribs]]) 09:48, 23 October 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:you are correct in that no one devised an anthem for HK, separate from any other territory, because it has never been independent! As a territory of the British Empire, it used ''God Save the Queen'', the UK anthem, and after 1 July 1997 it has used ''March of the Volunteers'' (《義勇軍進行曲》). Read the article before posting questions such as this, PLEASE. --[[User:HXL49|HXL]][[User talk:HXL49|'s Roundtable]], and [[Special:Contributions/HXL49|Record]] 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

:: Many dependent territories have their own anthem, different from the sovereign power behind them. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.198.29.220|203.198.29.220]] ([[User talk:203.198.29.220|talk]]) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: "March of the Volunteers" definitely is not Hong Kong's anthem. According to Basic Law Article 10, Hong Kong can have its own "regional anthem", which is N/A for the moment. It is totally wrong to say & "assume" "March of the Volunteers' is Hong Kong's anthem. There's ZERO fact behind such saying & an insult to the autonomy of Hong Kong. --[[User:Sitcomfanhk|Sitcomfanhk]] ([[User talk:Sitcomfanhk|talk]]) 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:::All of those are simply untrue.
:::#Straight from my download (off the HKSAR Gov't website) of the Basic Law, Article 10:

{{cquote|Article 10
:Apart from displaying the national flag and national emblem of the People’s Republic of China, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may also use a regional flag and regional emblem.
::The regional flag of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a red flag with a bauhinia highlighted by five star-tipped stamens.
::The regional emblem of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a bauhinia in the centre highlighted by five star-tipped stamens and encircled by the words "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China” in Chinese and “ HONG KONG” in English.}}

::On page 91 of the Basic Law, it states that "The following national laws shall be applied locally with effect from 1 July 1997 by way of promulgation or legislation by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region:... 1. Resolution on the...'''National Anthem and National Flag''' of the People's Republic of China"
::Sovereignty and autonomy are not the same thing. Just travel a few hundred kilometres to Guangxi and you will see what I mean.
:::Please don't make any more fabrications like this. --[[Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Macau.svg|20px]] [[User:HXL49|HXL]][[User talk:HXL49|'s Roundtable]], and [[Special:Contributions/HXL49|Record]] 08:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:::: We are talking about Hong Kong's anthem, NOT '''national anthem'''. Yes, "March of the Volunteers" is the '''national anthem''' of China, but not Hong Kong's '''regional anthem'''. Please don't try to twist the fact & make groundless assumption. There's no single legislation stating "March of the Volunteers" is Hong Kong's anthem. Also, Guangxi is NOT a SAR, but Hong Kong & Macau are.--[[User:Sitcomfanhk|Sitcomfanhk]] ([[User talk:Sitcomfanhk|talk]]) 05:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

== Border ==

The border had several minor changes bcos of the course of the two rivers. The maritime boundaries had also some changes as a result of negotiations in the 1990s. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Desvoeuxrdwest |Desvoeuxrdwest ]] ([[User talk:Desvoeuxrdwest |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Desvoeuxrdwest |contribs]]) 09:48, 23 October 2010 </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Outdated map ==

The territory of Hong Kong should include The Shenzhen Bay Bridge (which opened in July 2007) & a portion of the Shenzhen Bay Checkpoint, where both are under Hong Kong's jurisdiction.

"In accordance with the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the
National People's Congress on Authorizing the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region to Exercise Jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Port
Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" adopted at the Twenty Fourth Meeting of the
Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on 31 October
2006 and the relevant laws and regulations, and pursuant to a request for
instructions from the People's Government of Guangdong Province and at the
request of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
the State Council now gives the following reply concerning the area and
the land use period of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port"
which is established in the area of the Shenzhen Bay Port and over which
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is authorized to exercise
jurisdiction:

1. The area of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay
Port" comprises the Hong Kong Clearance Area and the section of the bridge
surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge which connects with the Hong Kong
Clearance Area.

The total land use area of the Hong Kong Clearance Area is 41.565
hectares (more particularly set out by the setting out coordinates
detailed at Annex 1).


== Serious problem with this article ==
The section of the bridge surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge
There's a serious omission in this article, which, extremely embarrassingly, has also been a problem for over 20 years now: nowhere in the current version of this article is there a map indicating which parts (i.e., prefecture-level administrative divisions) of the neighboring Guangdong province in the Pearl River Delta region are adjacent to or near Hong Kong. That's not very encyclopedic. It's not that hard; please fix!!!!!
refers to the section beginning at the south-east boundary of the Hong
Kong Clearance Area and ending at the boundary line between the Guangdong
Province and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (more
particularly set out by the setting out coordinates detailed at Annex 2).


Example of such a map that provides this very basic information that any users of this article would expect to find here:
2. The land use right of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HK_in_June_2018_IX2_Guangdong_map.jpg
Shenzhen Bay Port" is to be acquired by way of a lease under a lease
contract for State-owned land signed between the Government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region and the People's Government of the
Shenzhen Municipality of Guangdong Province, and the land use period shall
commence on the day on which the Shenzhen Bay Port commences operation and
shall expire on 30 June 2047.


[[Special:Contributions/98.123.38.211|98.123.38.211]] ([[User talk:98.123.38.211|talk]]) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/2210.txt"


Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive_8#Need_map [[Special:Contributions/98.123.38.211|98.123.38.211]] ([[User talk:98.123.38.211|talk]]) 15:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Even Hong Kong Observatory's map has such marking. [[File:http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/ts/temp/tempehk.png]]--[[User:Sitcomfanhk|Sitcomfanhk]] ([[User talk:Sitcomfanhk|talk]]) 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


== Area in the infobox is confusing ==
:Jurisdiction does not change boundaries. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])


The real area is 1114 km2. And you're showing more than double of that because you're counting all the surrounding waters. Since when do we count the sea as part of the area of a territorial entity? [[User:12qwas|12qwas]] ([[User talk:12qwas|talk]]) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:: The boundaries are changed as well.--[[User:Sitcomfanhk|Sitcomfanhk]] ([[User talk:Sitcomfanhk|talk]]) 05:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


== Low quality of Etymology section ==
== Single lead picture ==


[[File:Map_about_Hong_Kong_-_Drawn_between_1577_and_1595.jpg|left|thumb|香港/Hong Kong first record in Yuet Tai Kee written between 1577 and 1595. It was on north shore of present Aberdeen Island/Ap Lei Chau]]
Though this header may not be all clear, I reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&diff=393683710&oldid=392349486 this edit] by Bporter28, because the image he chose, contrary to his intention, does '''not''' show "all of the city", as it doesn't even show parts of Central. The night image, also from Victoria Peak, has a wider angle, though due to the smog Kowloon is a bit obscured, so by even Bporter28's it is better. Another point is, if we are to not use a collage, then the night image it is. --[[User:HXL49|HXL]][[User talk:HXL49|'s Roundtable]], and [[Special:Contributions/HXL49|Record]] 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
[[File:SSID-10116414_新安縣誌_1-2.pdf|left|page=98|thumb|香港村: Hong Kong Tsuen, village of Hong Kong, recorded in San-on County Gazetteer 1819]]
[[File:This_chart_of_the_different_passages_leading_to_Macao_Roads_LOC_88691655.jpg|left|thumb|Davis's Hoong-keang came from 紅江 in this 1810 map]]
This section was written long ago. It is full of misinformation and more accurate information are not put in the article. The etymology of Hong Kong/香港 have been studied in deep since the mid 20th century with handful of scholars writing papers and books on the topic in Hong Kong. It deserves a better rewrite.


# Missing essential information. The name 香港 was known in 16th century during Ming Dynasty. See the source ''Empson, Hal (1992). Mapping Hong Kong: A Historical Atlas. Government Information Services. OCLC 29939947'', which reprinted a map on page 17 and 84 with name "Coastal Map of Kwong Tung by Kwok Fei (郭棐) in Yuet Tai Kee (粵大記)". Yuet Tai Kee/粵大記 is frequently cited in many scholar works on this topic. (See Yuet Tai Kee map)
== Income Inequality ==
# Missing essential information. ''[[Aquilaria sinensis]]'', an incense wood, is very significant to the etymology of the Hong Kong. See the source ''"Aquilaria sinensis and origin of the name of Hong Kong". Hong Kong Herbarium'', that citing Professor Lo Hsiang-lin's suggesting the strong relationship between the plant and Hong Kong.
# Missing essential information. 香港村/香港圍, a village in very important to the history of Hong Kong. It was the reason why Hong Kong was picked up as the name of colony. (See 1819 San-on County Gazetteer)
# Trivial and misinformation. Davis's 1841 book noted ''- The name Hong-kong is a provincial corruption of Hoong-keang , "the red torrent ," from the colour of the soil through which the stream flows previous to its fall over the cliff.'' This description is quite possible that Davis misinterpreted Chinese labels on a 1810 map. The Chinese labels were the phonetic value of English(Portuguese) labels that 紅江, proximate pronunciation of Hong Kong (香港), by comparing with rest of labels (九龍→Cow-loon→ 九龍, 鯉魚門→Ly-ee-moon→ 禮衣門, 南丫→Lama→ 藍麻, 長洲→Cheung-chow→涌洲, 交椅洲→Cowee-chau→九以洲, 東涌→Toong-chung→同中) . Davis wrongly reinterpreted 紅江 as the red torrent. These funny labels were discussed in the source ''Mapping Hong Kong.'' Is it worth to put misinformation here? (See 1810 map)
# Wrong reference. In the article, the two key statements are particularly problematic: ''"Fragrant" may refer to the sweet taste of the harbour's freshwater influx from the Pearl River or to the odour from incense factories lining the coast of northern [[Kowloon]]. The incense was stored near Aberdeen Harbour for export before [[Victoria Harbour]] was developed.'' The reference link referred to the book ''"Room, Adrian (2005). Placenames of the World. McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-2248-7".'' The two statements are not what the book said:
#* In book, it located in Hong Kong Harbour between Hong Kong Island and mainland Kowloon, obviously Victoria Harbour, not Aberdeen Harbour.
#* In book, freshwater was from Xi Jiang River, not Pearl River.
#* In book, the odour was coming from opium or incense factory on the shore of the harbour.
#* In book, no mention of northern Kowloon.
# Misinformation and unreliable source. ''Placenames of the World'' by itself is not a reliable source. No specific sources support its claims. How could it be ''sweet taste of the harbour's freshwater'' when Pearl River/Xi Jiang River was dirty river. How could the salty sea water of Victoria Harbour and Aberdeen Channel would be ''sweet taste''? The author probably have no idea in geography of Hong Kong and the information is against common sense, long creeping in Wikipedia text and passing misinformation to reader. BTW, ''Fresh water'' comes from other stories but it is too long to discuss here.


It would be wonderful should anyone rewrite this faulty section. @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]]
There needs to be more to fully illustrate that poverty is increasing as a direct result of libertarian policies. This article is far right propaganda. Wikipedia has a libertarian bias [[Special:Contributions/99.38.230.227|99.38.230.227]] ([[User talk:99.38.230.227|talk]]) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


&mdash; [[User:HenryLi|HenryLi]] ([[User talk:HenryLi|Talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
==Demonym==


:Sorry, we have different senses of what information is essential in this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and whatever you think should be changed, it would not be acceptable to expand the Names section far beyond its present size, that would be wholly [[WP:BALANCE|unbalanced]] when the totality of what deserves to be discussed is taken into account—HK is a special case in that it should deserve a section discussing matters of lexicography and etymology at all. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
In addition to "Hongkonger", "HONG KONGER (with space in between)", "HONGKONGESE", "HONG KONGESE" should also be acceptable.--[[User:Sitcomfanhk|Sitcomfanhk]] ([[User talk:Sitcomfanhk|talk]]) 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
::Balance does not mean misinformation and unreliable source are allowed. Some trivial could be removed and essential could be added.
::Here I raise the concern and anyone could rewrite. If you could write it briefly, it would be nice. &mdash; [[User:HenryLi|HenryLi]] ([[User talk:HenryLi|Talk]]) 01:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::In regard to the issue of brevity, it seems to me that the solution to that problem is just to create the article [[Etymology of Hong Kong]]. <big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:If this is how you say it is, then I agree it should need a re-write. “Sweet taste of fresh water” in the harbour, miles away from the estuary and directly exposed to the Pacific ocean, is absolutely bonkers if you ask me. [[User:Andro611|Andro611]] ([[User talk:Andro611|talk]]) 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:35, 2 December 2024

Former featured articleHong Kong is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleHong Kong has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 7, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 12, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
July 7, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
November 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 20, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 31, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 7, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
May 1, 2016Featured topic candidateNot promoted
March 5, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 31, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 17, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
November 3, 2018Peer reviewNot reviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 1, 2004, July 1, 2005, July 1, 2006, August 29, 2013, August 29, 2015, August 29, 2017, August 29, 2018, and August 29, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Serious problem with this article

[edit]

There's a serious omission in this article, which, extremely embarrassingly, has also been a problem for over 20 years now: nowhere in the current version of this article is there a map indicating which parts (i.e., prefecture-level administrative divisions) of the neighboring Guangdong province in the Pearl River Delta region are adjacent to or near Hong Kong. That's not very encyclopedic. It's not that hard; please fix!!!!!

Example of such a map that provides this very basic information that any users of this article would expect to find here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HK_in_June_2018_IX2_Guangdong_map.jpg

98.123.38.211 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive_8#Need_map 98.123.38.211 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Area in the infobox is confusing

[edit]

The real area is 1114 km2. And you're showing more than double of that because you're counting all the surrounding waters. Since when do we count the sea as part of the area of a territorial entity? 12qwas (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality of Etymology section

[edit]
香港/Hong Kong first record in Yuet Tai Kee written between 1577 and 1595. It was on north shore of present Aberdeen Island/Ap Lei Chau
香港村: Hong Kong Tsuen, village of Hong Kong, recorded in San-on County Gazetteer 1819
Davis's Hoong-keang came from 紅江 in this 1810 map

This section was written long ago. It is full of misinformation and more accurate information are not put in the article. The etymology of Hong Kong/香港 have been studied in deep since the mid 20th century with handful of scholars writing papers and books on the topic in Hong Kong. It deserves a better rewrite.

  1. Missing essential information. The name 香港 was known in 16th century during Ming Dynasty. See the source Empson, Hal (1992). Mapping Hong Kong: A Historical Atlas. Government Information Services. OCLC 29939947, which reprinted a map on page 17 and 84 with name "Coastal Map of Kwong Tung by Kwok Fei (郭棐) in Yuet Tai Kee (粵大記)". Yuet Tai Kee/粵大記 is frequently cited in many scholar works on this topic. (See Yuet Tai Kee map)
  2. Missing essential information. Aquilaria sinensis, an incense wood, is very significant to the etymology of the Hong Kong. See the source "Aquilaria sinensis and origin of the name of Hong Kong". Hong Kong Herbarium, that citing Professor Lo Hsiang-lin's suggesting the strong relationship between the plant and Hong Kong.
  3. Missing essential information. 香港村/香港圍, a village in very important to the history of Hong Kong. It was the reason why Hong Kong was picked up as the name of colony. (See 1819 San-on County Gazetteer)
  4. Trivial and misinformation. Davis's 1841 book noted - The name Hong-kong is a provincial corruption of Hoong-keang , "the red torrent ," from the colour of the soil through which the stream flows previous to its fall over the cliff. This description is quite possible that Davis misinterpreted Chinese labels on a 1810 map. The Chinese labels were the phonetic value of English(Portuguese) labels that 紅江, proximate pronunciation of Hong Kong (香港), by comparing with rest of labels (九龍→Cow-loon→ 九龍, 鯉魚門→Ly-ee-moon→ 禮衣門, 南丫→Lama→ 藍麻, 長洲→Cheung-chow→涌洲, 交椅洲→Cowee-chau→九以洲, 東涌→Toong-chung→同中) . Davis wrongly reinterpreted 紅江 as the red torrent. These funny labels were discussed in the source Mapping Hong Kong. Is it worth to put misinformation here? (See 1810 map)
  5. Wrong reference. In the article, the two key statements are particularly problematic: "Fragrant" may refer to the sweet taste of the harbour's freshwater influx from the Pearl River or to the odour from incense factories lining the coast of northern Kowloon. The incense was stored near Aberdeen Harbour for export before Victoria Harbour was developed. The reference link referred to the book "Room, Adrian (2005). Placenames of the World. McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-2248-7". The two statements are not what the book said:
    • In book, it located in Hong Kong Harbour between Hong Kong Island and mainland Kowloon, obviously Victoria Harbour, not Aberdeen Harbour.
    • In book, freshwater was from Xi Jiang River, not Pearl River.
    • In book, the odour was coming from opium or incense factory on the shore of the harbour.
    • In book, no mention of northern Kowloon.
  6. Misinformation and unreliable source. Placenames of the World by itself is not a reliable source. No specific sources support its claims. How could it be sweet taste of the harbour's freshwater when Pearl River/Xi Jiang River was dirty river. How could the salty sea water of Victoria Harbour and Aberdeen Channel would be sweet taste? The author probably have no idea in geography of Hong Kong and the information is against common sense, long creeping in Wikipedia text and passing misinformation to reader. BTW, Fresh water comes from other stories but it is too long to discuss here.

It would be wonderful should anyone rewrite this faulty section. @Remsense

— HenryLi (Talk) 01:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we have different senses of what information is essential in this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and whatever you think should be changed, it would not be acceptable to expand the Names section far beyond its present size, that would be wholly unbalanced when the totality of what deserves to be discussed is taken into account—HK is a special case in that it should deserve a section discussing matters of lexicography and etymology at all. Remsense ‥ 论 01:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Balance does not mean misinformation and unreliable source are allowed. Some trivial could be removed and essential could be added.
Here I raise the concern and anyone could rewrite. If you could write it briefly, it would be nice. — HenryLi (Talk) 01:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the issue of brevity, it seems to me that the solution to that problem is just to create the article Etymology of Hong Kong. Yue🌙 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is how you say it is, then I agree it should need a re-write. “Sweet taste of fresh water” in the harbour, miles away from the estuary and directly exposed to the Pacific ocean, is absolutely bonkers if you ask me. Andro611 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong&oldid=1260774115"