Talk:British Hong Kong

Date of establishment

So we have three options for what to put as the year of establishment:

• 1841 - when British forces formally took possession of Hong Kong at Possession Point on 26 January
• 1842 - when it was formally ceded to Britain in the Treaty of Nanking
• 1843 - when it was officially designated a "Crown colony"

We can probably rule out 1843 because at the very least, it was either a de facto or de jure colony before then. (Well technically, the treaty was ratified in 1843 but sources overwhelmingly don't use that year as the start of the colony compared to the other two). The other years can be valid depending on definition. But if we're going to be pedantic, I'd argue for 1841 for the same reason we put the start of Portuguese Macau as 1557, not 1887. Macau is known as the first and last European colony in China. That's because they use the start date of 1557, when Macau was leased to Portugal for the first 300+ years before being assigned to Portuguese administration in the 1887 Treaty of Peking. The infobox years show de facto establishment and operation, not sovereignty. The IP who first changed it to 1842 was making edits elsewhere saying Taiwan is part of China, so his POV became immediately clear as to why he did it. He based it not on any de facto British settlement but on the year China recognised it as British territory. He did the same thing to the Portuguese Macau article. But the establishment of a colony can predate a treaty.

When it comes to infobox dates, there's precedence elsewhere in using de facto years over de jure ones. World War I ended in 1918, not 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles. World War II ended in 1945, not 1951 with the Treaty of San Francisco. And the Chinese Civil War and Korean War ended in 1949/50 and 1953, respectively. No treaties were signed but we don't say those wars are currently ongoing. (Some media articles use the phrase "technically still at war", but for many other sources and most importantly, for Wikipedia purposes - where the date issue has been discussed extensively on those talk pages - they use the de facto years). This reinforces my point that treaties (or lack thereof) are not necessarily the main criteria for assigning dates. Spellcast (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree with you. Before Treaty of Nanking was signed in 1842, Hong Kong was a part of China. From 1841 to 1842, British military de facto occupied Hong Kong, but the sovereignty and administrative right of Hong Kong still belonged to China de jure. Hong Kong became a British colony by Treaty of Nanking in 1842, because according to the treaty, China ceded Hong Kong to the United Kingdom. Before Sino-Portuguese Treaty of Peking was signed in 1887, Macau was a part of China. From 1557 to 1887, Macau was a Portuguese settlement de facto, but the sovereignty and administrative right of Macau still belonged to China de jure. Macau became a Portuguese colony by Sino-Portuguese Treaty of Peking in 1887, because according to the treaty, China gave the administrative right of Macau to Portugal. In conclusion, de facto control or occupation doesn't equal to the sovereignty or administrative right. If an area's sovereignty or administrative right doesn't belong to a country , the area isn't a territory or colony of the country. MouseCatDog (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No-one disagrees about when HK became a de facto vs de jure colony. The only disagreement is which one to put for the establishment date. I just think that for an article covering the whole colonial period, it's more appropriate to use the de facto year for the simple reason that the existence of a colony (whether it ran for 1 year or 300 years) can obviously predate a treaty. Similar to how the end date of a war can predate a treaty by a year or several years. Looking at the list of administrators and governors of Hong Kong, there were two administrators and one acting administrator in 1841. The start of the colony's foundations, including the magistracy, record office, prison, barracks, Queen's Road etc. all started in 1841. Neither of these dates are 'wrong', it's just a matter of definition. So we'll have to get consensus. If there's no comments from others, I'll invite input from the relevant WikiProjects. BTW your claim that Portugal never had sovereignty over Macau - only administrative rights - is the Chinese interpretation of the treaty, which is easily debatable. But that's a separate issue. Spellcast (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it is a good idea to regard the de jure date as the establishment date. Without China's recognition, it is illegal for United Kingdom to occupy Hong Kong de facto and for Portugal to occupy Macau de facto; Hong Kong and Macau are still territories of China, not the colonies of the United Kingdom and Portugal respectively. MouseCatDog (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Your change needs consensus first. I've linked this discussion on the WikiProjects to get third opinions. I've already given my reasons for why I think the de facto date should be used, but if consensus says otherwise, so be it. Spellcast (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why even have an article on Japanese-occupied Hong Kong? By your logic and using this example, the occupation was illegal and no administration was officially established, so we shouldn't actually acknowledge those dates either. Horserice (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To Horserice: The article named "British Hong Kong" mainly talks about Hong Kong as the colony of the United Kingdom. As a colony, Hong Kong's sovereignty belonged to the United Kingdom from 1842, when China (China was represented by "Qing dynasty" at that time) ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom by Treaty of Nanking, to 1997, when United Kingdom handovered Hong Kong's sovereignty to China (China was represented by "People's Republic of China" at that time). The military of the United Kingdom de facto occupied Hong Kong island in 1841, but without China's recognition, Hong Kong was still China's territory, instead of colony of the United Kingdom; British military occupation of Hong Kong was illegal in 1841. The article named "Japanese occupation of Hong Kong" mainly talks about Hong Kong de facto occupied by Japan between 1941 and 1945. In other words, the political status of Hong Kong between 1941 and 1945 is Japanese military occupation, instead of Japanese colony, because Japan didn't get Hong Kong's sovereignty from the United Kingdom, which makes Japanese military occupation of Hong Kong become illegal. MouseCatDog (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)