Talk:Politics of Hong Kong
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Politics of Hong Kong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 23
[edit]Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law appears to be something of an issue at the moment; does anybody know anything about it in order to write an article or an addition to an existing article? A general article about the Hong Kong Basic Law would be a good thing, too. - Khendon 17:02, November 19, 2002 (UTC)
Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law appears to be something of an issue at the moment; does anybody know anything about it in order to write an article or an addition to an existing article? A general article about the Hong Kong Basic Law would be a good thing, too. --Cylauj 17:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
July 1 Protest March
[edit]This section seems contradictory, and isn't exactly neutral:
- The probable lower numbers were attributed to the fact that it was the hottest 1 July ever recorded, at 34 degrees Celsius. Another suggested reason is that a large number of people stayed up late until the early morning to watch the Euro 2004 match between Portugal and the Netherlands. There was a noticeable fall in the general anger of the crowds when compared to the 2003 march, attributed to the fact that the Hong Kong economy was showing signs of recovery, and the dissolution of Article 23.
What it looks like is grasping at straws to find a reason for the lower turnout, and only grudgingly conceding that there was less anger. -- DOR (HK) Nov 30, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Region Name
[edit]Under "Region name", there are two listed forms of names :
local long form: Xianggang Tebie Xingzhengqu
local short form: Xianggang
I am currently living in Hong Kong (and I've been living here since I was born) but have never heard of such name. Those names are Pinyin transcriptions, which is a romanization method for Mandarin Chinese; however, the predominant dialect here is Cantonese, which is related with the term "Hong Kong" since it is the romanization of the name of the place in cantonese. So, it's not very accurate to say that the name is a "local" one.
By the way, the "local long form" means "The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong" and the "local short form" means "Hong Kong".
--Cylauj 17:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I edited the "Local * Form" to "* form (in pinyin)" to reflect the better truth. -- Tomchiukc 07:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Blatantly?
[edit]The term "blatantly" used in reference to the July 1st Protests sounds biased to me. I believe "obviously" is a discouraged term; "blatantly" is pretty synonymous with that. If it was explicitly stated, I'd say "explicitly"; otherwise I'd leave it as "a pro-Beijing festival and fair." Mariko 04:50, July 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, the term "blatantly" seems to give emphasise on a bias opinion (in this case anti-Beijing sentiment). I would also suggest removing the word in its entirity as Mariko has suggested. Cadogan 13:44, July 2, 2004 (UTC)
Voting system
[edit]I added information concerning the voting systems used in both the GCs and FCs in the LegCo elections. I don't know whether I should discuss the ramifications of using such systems; perhaps I should start another HK-specific thread on this? - Darylngan 20:55, December 5, 2004 (UTC)
The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions is not a political party, although it is listed along with the political parties in the box. DOR (HK) Oct 3, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Point form
[edit]I found the point-form information really annoying. Why couldn't the writer present in a paragraph? This problem exists in many Hong Kong-related articles. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 3 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
- Should those information be deleted? It is the standard way of presenting, and it allows quick comparison between countries. Many of these point-form materials come from the CIA World Factbook. — Instantnood 18:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Breaking is necessary but too much point-form makes the article difficult to read, especially when the fragments are small. Some small headers are in fact not necessary since things happened continuously, not in a discrete manner. Besides, I thought we should tell the concept rather than present the data. Politics of the United States is a very good example.--218.102.224.237 06:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Pictures
[edit]Some pictures for this article would be great. If someone has the time, please see if you can find some. Commons might even have some pictures of the July 1 protest in 2003. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
date audit
[edit]The formats were a mixture of US and international. I've gone with international, so please buzz me if there's consensus to have the US, and I'll change it. Tony (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- thanks! I think international for Hong Kong articles is fine. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
LSD incidents
[edit]I do not think Raymond Wong Yuk-man's banana throw incident & Lee Cheuk-yan's banana incident could be classified as political issues, and I suggest their removal. Certainly the latter doesn't fit at all, it's just an isolated incident which is fine solely within the context of LCY's article (although it's too detailed for my liking). The former protest can be re-framed in terms of "Tsang's economic relief package". Ohconfucius (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The 1st one by Raymond Wong Yuk Man should be political enough. It shows dissatisfaction and a response. The second one may appear less because it could have been a street psycho. But people analyse these as politically motivated. Is just a banana, but has some meanings. Benjwong (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Important notice
[edit]The government section of the "Outline of Hong Kong" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.
When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.
Please check that this country's outline is not in error.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .
Thank you.
Leung Chin-man appointment
[edit]This minor issue was current more than a few years ago. The section should be deleted. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
First Paragraph
[edit]Hong Kong's government, while not freely elected, is not "a repressive dictatorship." There is a significant Legislative Council, part of which is elected by the people and an independent judiciary. This should be changed ASAP Seand1398 (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)seand1398, 10/30/19
<https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-type-of-government-does-hong-kong-have.html></ref> <https://www.gov.hk/en/about/govdirectory/govstructure.htm></ref>
- The Legislative Council is a pure rubber stamp body, structured to ensure the certainty of government edict being made law. There's your dictatorship (plus the Chief Executive's use of completely unfettered personal legislative power). The repressive part we have in the nature of the law decreed by the CE and the comprehensive methods of suppression of voices opposed to the government (disqualification of legislators and candidates for election, for example). The two sources provided by user:Seand1398 are no support at all for the criticism: The World Atlas (who are they? written for Primary students, if not by?) starts its article with the statement that HK is an "independent territory" for goodness' sake. That's hilariously ill-informed both because it never was and is not and it is currently illegal in Hong Kong to suggest such a thing (criminal offence to lend support to any group promoting the idea). The second link is the government's own propaganda. So a more cogent and better supported argument needs to be launched here to challenge the current version. sirlanz 00:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
One country one system
[edit]There are lots of news report regarding that Beijing changes its policy to want a total grip of the city's political system. I know Trump is not a good source thus this edit is removed (Special:Diff/1010382183). But other editors, feel free to use WSJ, NY Times, The Economist, etc. as citations for a possible new section of this wiki article. (And don't put it on list) Note that it is totally COI and not NPOV to use any CCP-owned Mainland media as citation. Matthew hk (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- e.g.