Talk:Hong Kong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
Article milestones
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
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Wage gap[edit]

"the wage gap remained high"
Is this the sex wage gap?--Adûnâi (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is Gini coefficient between blue collar and white collar and between manager. Yet again there is lots of fact and figure need to be dig out citation... Matthew hk (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

In the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, it should be "Sovereignty over the territory was returned to China in 1997" instead of "...transferred to China...".[edit]

Before Hong Kong was a british colony, it is part of China. So we should use the word "returned" instead of "transferred".

The political entity "China" that originally held sovereignty over Hong Kong no longer existed in 1997. So no, it was not being "returned". (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
An inaccurate interpretation guised as pedantry. Per the phrasing of the Joint Declaration itself, the transfer of sovereignty is referred as a "recovery." In further legalese, per international norms as seen with the Soviet Union>Russia, the government of PRC is recognized as the successor to the entity of "China" since its accession to the UN.

Sleath56 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019[edit]

Fix spelling error of worlds's to world's in the article. (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Double standard edits on Hong Kong and Singapore[edit]

So my edits and other people who edited the info has been removed by because " putting economic rankings here deviates from MOS:INTRO." If that's the rule than I will obliged but than you look at Singapore wikipedia page who also deviates from MOS:INTRO but than User talk:Horserice said " The lead section of the Singapore article is way too long and all the rankings there is add unnecessary fluff. But we're not working on that article so it shouldn't concern us. " WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS MEAN ? That Singapore is allowed to glorified but Hong Kong is not allowed to ? Singapore is allowed to exaggerate it's edits, Singapore is the only wikipedia page in the world that is allowed to do that ? If you Singapore wiki page allowed to add all the things that breaks the rule but than saying is none of concern how is this not double standard ? No way in heck that you convince anyone that is no hypocrisy and double standard on wikipedia. PLEASE RESPOND AND DEAL THIS WITH FAIRNESS.

DerekHistorian (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And so your solution was to engage an edit war and vandalize Singapore? You know how this looks right? Feinoa (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Whatever edit in Singapore or any other article does not bear any influence on editing in Hong Kong article. STSC (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Life expectancy[edit]

I think it is correct to state that Hong Kong has the longest life expectancy. The world bank data [1] is one of the sources which I have previously seen along with [2]. There is also secondary coverage in [3], [4], [5]--DreamLinker (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019[edit] Hello cold wid da bouys (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC) ק

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We (Sirlanz and I) seem to have a difference of opinion as to facts vs. opinion. He prefers to include as a statement of fact (and without any citation) a change in the one country, two systems formula; whereas I prefer to define that administrative law as it was written.

Views, please. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mistake in Hong Kong Legal Tender Statement[edit]

Statement in Hong Kong wikipedia page states that the Hong Kong dollar is the 13th-most traded currency in the world. According to the Foreign Exchange Market wikipedia page, this statement is false as it places it at number 9 on the list of most traded currencies by value. One of these pages are wrong in this statement so it would be best if this could be fixed in a timely manner as thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, are viewing this daily as the protests rage. Thank you for the time you took to read this. 2600:8801:980:2EE:DDDE:741F:90BE:D08B (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Frank King 10/17/2019

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019[edit]

Change "The protests have continued into October, becoming the largest-scale protest movement in Chinese history, with several street marches known to have attracted more than 1.5 million Hong Kong residents each time." to "The protests have continued into October, becoming the largest-scale protest movement in Hong Kong history, with several street marches believed to have attracted almost 1 million Hong Kong residents." (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS for that? I'll also add a citation-needed to the article itself, but will update with figures from the protests article for now :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisWar666: The Economist stated the 16 June protest was PROBABLY the largest political protest ever staged in Hong Kong. It may have been the biggest in China’s history. . (only bold added by me, the capitalization was by the magazine) So by common sense it should be changed to HK , and may be adding "probably" wording. Also it may be more accurate to state the magazine did not believed the actual figure that claimed by the organizer, as the magazine stated The estimate may not be reliable. But there is no disputing the impact of this display of discontent, and others leading up to it. . Matthew hk (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
And instead the entire statement need to be chopped and rewrite for no RS and probably synthesis of sources. There is no RS (yet) for stating the historical significant of the protests that last until today. Matthew hk (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Right, that sounds good to me, checking the 2019 Hong Kong protests page there seem to be more sources talking of largest protests since 1997 (Bloomberg) and in HK history (Hong Kong Free Press). Yes, we could quote police figures, but we already link the protests page so I think that should be enough (maybe even take out the figure, leaving 'probably largest' only?). True, there is no way we can know the historical significance, but they are undeniably making news around the world (I confess, I don't remember the 2014 protests, but it was a different time of my life.); and they also fit nicely into the paragraph they are in, talking about political debates. Perhaps a rewrite of this part, more in line with the 2014 ones? "In 2019, a proposed extradition amendment bill permitting extradition of fugitives to mainland China triggered a series of protests, described as probably the largest in Hong Kong history." For the moment I'll add the economist source, and if we agree on a rephrase I guess this can be marked as answered. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Area" needs tidying up[edit]

The "Area-Total" of 1,108 sq km given in the infobox in fact excludes the maritime area under Hong Kong's jurisdiction. The "Area-Water(%)" supposedly refers to inland waters.

The relevant data given in Section 4 "Geography" suggest that the "Total Area" is 2,755 sq km, in which 1,073 sq km is land and 35 sq km is inland waters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"City in Southern China"[edit]

The page begins with "This article is about the city in southern China. For other uses, see Hong Kong (disambiguation)." Should this not be changed to something along the lines of "The SAR of China", or "The Special Autonomous Region of China", "The territory in the south of China", or something along the lines of this? Hong Kong does not hold city status within the People's Republic of China like other cities such as Shenzhen or Guangdong, therefore it may be incorrect to call it a "City" in formal terms, it is more of a layman's term to describe HK. This is also considering that there are cities within HK itself. Also, reading the peer review in 2018, it was commented that "The territory" and "The city" when referring to Hong Kong indeed refer to different things, and this should be applied to the situation in question. ChanticoPK (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@ChanticoPK I agree, I changed it because it IS different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriGagrin12 (talkcontribs) 20:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"with organisers claiming to have attracted more than one million Hong Kong residents"[edit]

This was a fine summary a few months ago. However, since June, the protests have expanded greatly. Should we not replace this claim with something stronger. Not sure what though. Since this is GA, I leave it to you all to decide what to say. The source (Darrach 2019) was published in June. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)