Talk:Hong Kong

5 Big Clans

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.65.17 (talk • contribs) 2010-06-27T21:56:16

Lead image

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.

That said, I too support reverting to the night-time skyline view from the Peak, looking east along the Island. Far more striking image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.236.70 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Skyline

Collage

User:NInTeNdO insists on replacing the skyline image with 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. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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, 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, NInTeNdO (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — 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. 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. — 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. NInTeNdO (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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 edit warring. Craddocktm (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2010 (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. TastyCakes (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• 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. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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) Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I make a new collage of better quality with wider dimensions?--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• 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?Phead128 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Weihaiwei

Is there any reason to include the information in the lead section? See 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. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 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. 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 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.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. 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.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 訂租威海衛專條 [Convention for Weihaiwei]. Page 152–153 of this book talks about Weihaiwei. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 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. 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. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 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. David Tombe (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No offence, but your assertions demonstrate strong 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.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 Weihaiwei.

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. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, You say that 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 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. 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. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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.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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with the three sub-sections idea, I think it makes the History section flows better. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 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 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. 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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 Port Arthur, Kwanchowan, and 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. 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. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The reason Macau was mentioned is because there are only two SARs in this whole world, and Hong Kong is currently a SAR. British colonies are different because there were this many. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 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. 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... Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 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. 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. 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? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. 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 violatesWP: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. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • yes, anything mentioned in the lede ought to be developed in the body. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. 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. 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. Accusing us presently assembled of 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 third opinion if you must. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 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. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 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.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: [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. 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. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 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)" Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010

Anthem

Hong Kong does not have any anthem of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010

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. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Many dependent territories have their own anthem, different from the sovereign power behind them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.29.220 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"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. --Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:25, 10 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010

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).

The section of the bridge surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge 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).

2. The land use right of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the 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.

http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/2210.txt"

Even Hong Kong Observatory's map has such marking. File:Http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/ts/temp/tempehk.png--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Single lead picture

Though this header may not be all clear, I reverted 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. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Income Inequality

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 99.38.230.227 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Demonym

In addition to "Hongkonger", "HONG KONGER (with space in between)", "HONGKONGESE", "HONG KONGESE" should also be acceptable.--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sitcomfanhk, 10 January 2011

Remove "March of the Volunteers" as Hong Kong's anthem, which is incorrect.

Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)