Jump to content

Talk:Hong Kong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lone Internaut (talk | contribs) at 13:39, 12 July 2023 (→Recent changes in the lead.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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 reviewReviewed
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

"92.0% Han Chinese"

In the infobox it is said that there are 92% Han Chinese. Does this figure include or exclude non-Han Chinese, e.g., Manchus, Hlais? 118.140.125.81 (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my (extensive) experience with HKSAR demographic data, all PRC citizens are classified as “Chinese,” unless otherwise stated. Perhaps the original source has more / different information, but my belief is that the extremely few non-Han Chinese citizens would indeed be included under this category. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Numerically few; but there are many notable people with (at least partial) non-Han ancestry. 118.140.125.76 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
. . . “Numerically few . . .” In other words, statistically insignificant, and so not useful in this context. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's so hard to tell whether they are covered or otherwise? If no such information is collected in censuses or surveys then there's no basis to wikilink Han Chinese as opposed to ethnic Chinese. 118.140.125.73 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hard? No. Incomplete data, that’s all. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DOR (HK): Just change it if there's nothing whatsoever which suggests only Hans are covered. 118.140.125.80 (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me if I refrain from making arbitrary changes to what the actual sources says. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem very useful. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To replace the reference of 92% in the infobox from Han Chinese to Chinese peoples. 118.140.125.70 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
🔔, please establish that there is some dispute about the accuracy of the edit before you run rough-shod over it. Quite rude. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the case, thanks. 118.140.125.75 (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic breakdown listing "white" as category is arguably racist

The ethnic breakdown of Hong Kong takes from a source that distinguishes Asian nationalities and ethnicities, but then truncates most Caucasians into the wholesale grouping "white". This is a form of racism, specifically, failing to provide comparable distinction in race for those Caucasians, e.g., "Dutch", "white English", "Ukrainian", "white American", etc. The implication is that "white" is a sufficient identifier for those individuals, notwithstanding their specific ethnicity or nationality, as opposed to the much more delineated groupings for Asian ethnicities and nationalities. The same logic would condemn the category of "black" (as opposed to "Nigerian", "Zambian", "black American", "black English", etc.). It is understandable why Asian nations are of greater focus, given the geographical locale of Hong Kong, but this is not an appropriate designation for Wikipedia, notwithstanding the source's terminology. If anyone cares to improve on the source so as to eliminate the discrepancy, I believe it will improve the article overall. I will do so myself if I find an improved source. Thank you. Resurgence133 (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this incredibly ignorant soapboxing? First of all, nationality does not equal ethnicity or race. Second of all, most countries' censuses group by race (especially English-speaking ones), including Western countries like Canada, my home country, where "White" is listed in our official statistics. Third of all, what do you mean by "improve the source"? The source is the Hong Kong government's official statistics, which use the Chinese term 白人 (literally "white people") and the English term "White", like several other countries. There are no WP:RS issues as far as I can tell, unless you would beg to differ? "Not an appropriate designation for Wikipedia", according to you but not any policy guideline I am aware of.
Outside of this specific discussion, you may also want to look into how censuses are conducted. In most places, including Hong Kong, ethnicity / race is self-reported. Perhaps many people do not identify as a specific ethnicity anymore because their lineage is irrelevant to their identity in Hong Kong. Perhaps some people do identify as French, or Dutch, or American on the census, but not enough people to do so instead of identifying as "White", so it would not make sense to create a specific category for certain subgroups.
Your complaint is the equivalent of going to the United States article and saying, "It's racist to have 'Whites' listed when they distinguish between two indigenous groups—Native Americans and Pacific Islanders. We should ignore the fact that the source is official statistics from the U.S. census and just find a different source that distinguishes between Irish Americans, German Americans, etc."
I also like the comment that "It is understandable why Asian nations are of greater focus, given the geographical locale of Hong Kong." How do you understand it though? Do you think the Hong Kong government went, "Oh since we're in Asia, we should distinguish the Asians only, even if we have statistics for every specific non-Asian ethnicity." Or do you think that maybe the government just doesn't have those statistics at hand because they weren't reported adequately or at all? And what better source would there be to substitute the Hong Kong government's? They're the only ones conducting censuses of every household across the city! Yue🌙 05:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't feed the trolls. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes in the lead.

On June 7 user Tart (talk · contribs) altered the lead of the article, by significantly reducing its size. Seems like no one protested. I do not think this was appropriate, especially for such a Good article and I think it should have been discussed first. He also added a claim in →‎Economy which has been left unsourced. What's to be done? Lone Internaut (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong&oldid=1165018343"