Jump to content

Talk:Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict

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

Mong Kok Riota

[edit]

Shouldn't there be more info on the Yellow Umbrella riots, Mong Kok and also the abduction of booksellers/attacks on free speach in HK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 January 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict (non-admin closure). feminist (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hong Kong–Mainland conflict → Hong Kong–China conflict – As per WP:UCRN which states that ambiguous names should not be used, it would make more sense to call this page Hong Kong-China conflict as it clarifies whom the conflict is between. Those who aren't aware of "mainland" being used as a way to describe PRC wouldn't understand. Plus "mainland" does appear to be a WP:NPV term so it should be changed to the more neutral "China". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move As nominator. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Hong Kong is part of China (the cultural and historical region/entity), and no one disputes that. The dispute is specifically between Hong Kong and the mainland, i.e. between the area formerly under British rule until 1997 and the area that has been under PRC rule since 1949. The proposed move, therefore, makes no sense. "Mainland" in this context is not ambiguous. In fact, "China" is much more ambiguous, as it slyly posits that Hong Kong is not part of the historical and cultural entity that is China, which is clearly not a neutral position. RGloucester — ☎ 14:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically its not a full part of China subject to all laws and jurisdiction, it's an SAR. That's like saying the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom. If it needs to be made clearer it could be changed to something like "Hong Kong SAR-China PR conflict". Futhermore, using mainland does seem to incorrectly imply that Hong Kong is an island. Hong Kong Island is but last time I checked, the New Territories (which is a part of Hong Kong) shared a land border with China PR. Therefore it is on the "mainland". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
China is a historical/cultural entity, not a state. The state is the PRC. Hong Kong is part of China regardless of what one thinks about the PRC. It was part of China even when under British rule. RGloucester — ☎ 08:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If "China" is NOT means a state,plz edit the "China" wikipedia page first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China. Don't play word game, you just intended to mislead and confuse. --207.98.72.251 (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information about the background, the root of the incidences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hguo1 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://world.time.com/2012/01/24/trouble-down-south-why-hong-kong-and-mainland-chinese-arent-getting-along/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 22:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CEPA

[edit]

The section on CEPA omits the fact that Hong Kong business lobbied for the agreement in conjunction with China's ascention to the WTO. The reason what their fear that Hong Kong might lose out if China agreed to some ascention-related side deals (e.g., with the US). More, this section has no sources. I recommend it be deleted. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

I also note the rather strong bias in this article, which I am attempting to correct. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tense in English

[edit]

DOR (HK) faults (by entry to my talk page) my edit to the opening sentence correcting the obvious error in tense, on the basis that the edit was "without useful explanation". The edit summary read: revert edit which flatly contradicts intent as stated in edit summary (and edit contradicts facts as set out in body. The original text read: "relations have been tense in the 2000s", the corrected text read "relations have been tense since the 2000s". Is DOR (HK) suggesting that it is correct to suggest that we are locked in a 2009 time-warp? sirlanz 00:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose to merge Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict into Hong Kong-Mainland China relations. I think that the content in the Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict article can easily be explained in the context of Hong Kong-Mainland China relations, and the Hong Kong-Mainland China relations article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Stinglehammer (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; the current structure seems to work; I've added a see also template so that interested articles can read more at the boarder topic. Merging to the Hong-Kong-focussed page would also create problems for Macau-related content. Klbrain (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 11:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

[edit]

"Conflict"? There is no confiict. There's no war. It should be renamed to/merged with Hong Kong–Mainland China relations. Conflict is reserved for actual wars like the Basque Conflict or the Colombian Conflict.188.141.3.145 (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

[edit]

The purpose of an infobox is to summarize key elements of the content within articles. It is not a decorative element, and should only include information actually mentioned in the article. Also, associating certain people with symbols is akin to tying them to certain movements. Without a proper source or explanation, such decorative edits may lead to real world consequences. We must all edit responsibly. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essay-like

[edit]

This article is written like an argumentative essay and the section headings read like points of an essay. I suspect a lot of this is original resarch and arguments based on a synthesis of news articles. Many section headings are examples, prominent and minor alike, of incidents which the author felt represented the conflict between Hongkongers and mainland Chinese. Some examples of questionable wording and claims without sourcing:

  • "Besides, since northern places like Sheung Shui became the transaction centres of the traders, this resulted in discontent from nearby residents."
  • "The recent conflicts (anchor babies, D&G crisis, and parallel trading) further contributed to the rise of local awareness in self-identity."
  • "The Pro-Beijing camp argue that these new immigrants are to help combat an ageing population as well as bringing new talent into the city."

None of the citations given near these sentences verify the claim, just facts that might support the argument. Yue🌙 05:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your concern is noted. However, changing the POV and checking the bias of the whole article will be a huge undertaking. I've read all the references in the first section of the article and found multiple instances of biased synthesis using selective reporting. References used in the article are largely reliable and neutral in tone, but past editors likely chose to ignore NPOV and took the anthropological Position of a Hong Kong independence advocate. Unsourced sentences will be removed.-Loned (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong–Mainland_China_conflict&oldid=1218316191"