Jump to content

Talk:Hong Kong independence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

deletion

It is up to you to delete this section. The deletion, if happens as you suggest, will not change the fact that the Hong Konger Front not only exists but is growing.

Regan

regan@hkfront.org

Whatever. I think this is webcruft/spam/non-notable. At least those three newspapers call it nothing more than a "website". I've never heard of it after living in HK for 10 years. I mean, what the hell is this Regan dude going to do, raise an army? 203.218.88.163 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Beijing should put more respect on 1-country-2-systems

Believably over 90% of Hong Kong people do not want independence due to many practical issues, no natural resources, no food supply nor military being some of the issues, but if CCP continues acting arrogantly and inconsiderately by sticking their fingers everywhere, CCP is helping the 10% to make their claims justified.

CCP is blaming their domestic chaos to "foreign empires", President Hu Jintao already admitted at the 18th Congress Meeting that China's collapse will be due to CCP's corruption.

In 2011 alone, there're over 200,000 protests all over China, mostly land seizures and corruption related. Do foreign empires instruct CCP officals to grab lands and be corrupted?

CCP is seen messing up things everywhere.

For instance whenever Hongkongers rally protests against policies concerning CCP ie the brain-washing school curriculum attempted to introduce to Hong Kong, CCP shamelessly organized hundreds of Mainlanders from Guangdong pretending as Hong Kong people to support the CCP's stance.

CCP is sending 150+ ruthless, uncultured and poor Mainlanders to Hong Kong daily as immigrants all at the discretion of the corrupted CCP. Among the 150, some are CCP guys with an aim to dilute Hong Kong's population while the remaining have to pay a bribe in the Mainland to become immigrants.

CCP funding enormously the left-wing parties in Hong Kong, providing below-value dinners and trips to Hong Kong citizens in order to buy friendship and votes.

The sneaky gestures of CCP not only getting Hong Kong people upset but you guys are the ones that are violating Deng Xiao Ping's 1 country 2 systems.

CCP ought to leave the FREE orderly City alone if CCP still wants Hongkongers to come under the 1 country.

1C2S was an ambitious solution that proved HK with something analogous to independence, and yet independence. With only very small percentage of the population remotely interested in independence, d HK independence is a fringe idea at best. Silvanus93 (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

discussion

This organisation does not actually exist, and is unheard. It remains in slogan form among several guys on some newsgroups on the Internet. — Instantnood 04:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

By the same token, the activities of the Chinese Communist Party have been well-organized and mostly underground in Hong Kong since the early 1950s, though the CCP stronly strongly denies their political presence in Hong Kong -- but everybody is well aware that the Hong Kong Branch of the Chinese Communist Party does exist in Hong Kong and the director of the Xinhua New Agency was always the secretary-general of the Hong Kong Branch of the CCP before the 1997 Handover

The activities, which are always online and open, held by the Hong Konger Front are not unheard, nor are they denied by the Hong Konger Front themselves or by the HKSAR government

The aforesaid criticism -- Hong Konger Front does not actually exist -- is biased and irrational, and it is just the wishful thinking performed by Beijing and some HKSAR government officials

Why not Instantnood be brave enough to face the existence of the Hong Konger Front and the Hong Konger voice that calls for Hong Kong Independence— 61.62.225.217

In Hong Kong, a survey shows that 30% of Hong Kongers support Hong Kong to be an independent state...— TonySapphire

Ok, I'd have to agree with Insta in this case because if you clearly look at the history of this page the author or modifier used the term "some fucking websites" which clearly demonstrates ignorance because the word "fucking" used in this context has no appearent sense to what this "so-called" political party is about.

Look up the word itself and you will find that it absolutely no direct coherence to this article: Dictionary.com/fucking

2. If this was a true political party, why in the world would they be running it on Geocities.com North America, instead of an independant hosting company. Anyways if you don't believe me here's the WHOis lookup of the site:

www.geocities.com (66.218.77.68)

66.218.64.0 - 66.218.95.255

Yahoo!

701 First Ave

Sunnyvale, CA

US

3. 61.62.225.217, maybe Instantnood is wrong and maybe I'm also wrong, but what evidence do you have in favour of this "so-called" political party"?

I'd say most likely this political party doesn't exist at all based on all this evidence. However, this political party could exist but I think it is a bunch of rubbish. Personally, as I'm from Hong-Kong; I would personally like Hong Kong under China with the capitalist economy system implemented. I'd probably put this article under Speedy Deletion because although it demonstrates some factuality it is most likely a hoax. I don't know what do you think? Mind my english, as it is not perfect --N0N4am0r 20:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


((((Ok, I'd have to agree with Insta in this case because if you clearly look at the history of this page the author or modifier used the term "some fucking websites" which clearly demonstrates ignorance because the word "fucking" used in this context has no appearent sense to what this "so-called" political party is about. )))) The above accusation is simply not true, and it is both rude and ridiculous

The website of the Hong Konger Front is going to be hosted by an independent webhosting company by the end of 2005

Besides, in February 2005, the Beijing regime used its officially-controlled New China News Agency (previously Xinhua News Agency) to criticize the Hong Konger Front openly and strongly, and then the pro-Beijing media in Hong Kong followed suit; so, if the Hong Konger Front and its members do not exist, why will the media in China and in Hong Kong have openly condemned Hong Konger Front in February 2005, describing the Hong Konger Front as a separatist organization closely associated with Taiwanese separatists, Tibetan separatists and Eastern Turkistan separatists?

The Hong Konger Front is one of the cosponsors of the protest march held by the International Tibet Independence Movement (ITIM) from July 31 to August 13, 2005; if the Hong Konger Front does not exist, why did the ITIM invite the Hong Konger Front to be one of its cosponsor?


Dear Instantnood,

Now, the Hong Konger Front is hosted by a web hosting company, using an independent domain name, (the URL: http://www.hkfront.org ), and many of our members have disclosed their Hong Konger Front member identity as shown on a list of contact persons and consultants posted on the Join us web page of the Chinese version of the Hong Konger Front website; so, what else can you be critical of about the Hong Konger Front now? The Hong Kong communists (under the Chinese Communist Party) never disclose their identity and their Party organization in Hong Kong, nor do they have a website, not to mention that they are willing to admit that they are communists; why not you be critical of them and argue that they do not exist?

Regan

regan@hkfront.org


Dear N0N4am0r,

As shown by the bias rhetoric you used and the autocratic opinion you made herein, I am sure that plenty of democratic people in Hong Kong show no respect for you, and Hong Kong people certainly dislike you, nor do Hong Kong people want to talk to you; since you love politics so much and you ignore democracy and uphold the autocratic Chinese communist regime, I wonder whether you are qualified to work as a wikipedia editor who are supposed to be unbiased, impartial, open-minded and sort of academic

Regan

regan@hkfront.org

  • This discussion seems to me to be about whether Hong Kong should be independent or not - that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I say the article on the Hong Konger Front should remain, because if there is an independence movement in Hong Kong that is encyclopedic. I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with any such movement, since that would be irrelevant. When editing an encyclopedia the need is to be encyclopedic and objective. Perhaps the easiest way would be for an administrator to add a tag at the front of the article along the lines that this may be subjective. It is however worthy of a place in Wikipedia. No doubt pro-China Hong Kongers will disagree with me, but before any disagrees with me, please apply an objective test. Rhyddfrydol 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Name correction Page Move

The headings above and in the portal page (Hong Kong Front, and Hong Kong Frontline) are inaccurate; hopefully, the wikipedia editors will make the corrections as soon as possible; the correct title of this political group is called Hong Konger Front (its old name is Hong Konger Frontline, but the term Frontline was found to be a bad English usage, thus it is replaced by the term Front, as of September 2005) -- 220.132.182.132 (Orginally posted in main article -- KTC 01:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

I'm going to move the page based on the name on its website. -- KTC 01:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, seeing the Hong Konger Front page had been made to redirect here, I can't move it as non-admin. I'm going to list it for an admin to do it. -- KTC 01:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. enochlau (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Briefness of article

The article is surprisingly brief. There seems to be very little mention of the motivations behind the idea of Hong Kong independence. Also conspicuously absent from the article is the notion of 'Cantonese independence'. Does this mean that the political party being described is a 'fringe party' (i.e. an extremist party)? Or is this article yet another example of one that has been compromised by serial systematic bias? 122.109.121.9 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Common views (section removed)

The below copy was inserted in barely literate form and was then severely chopped around until it hung alone with no obvious relevance to the topic. I show it below for the record.

Concrete actions such as armed force recruitment like that promoted by Dr Sun Yat-sen or the development of a non-cooperation movement like the Indian independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi do not exist in Hong Kong.

Earthlyreason (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge "Hong Konger Front" into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Hong Kong independence movement. -- T@vatar (discuss–?) 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend merging "Hong Konger Front" into this article, to be a section called "Pro-independence organizations", because the content of them may now duplicate. Also, "Independence of Hong Kong" is much more valuable than the article of "a pro-independence organization". Andyso(talk page) 16:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See the reprint of the 1994 Harvard University Journal of World affairs issue here. This topic is wider than just the HKer front. But I wonder how much this article can expand. This is not a traditional movement like those in Taiwan, Tibet, Egypt etc. If you present it that way you will never have any sources. You might also be stuck with 1990s sources, since it is practically illegal to print about independence topics in SAR territories nowadays. Benjwong (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
That is not illegal in HK. Andyso(talk page) 08:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There were talks around 2000 that most HK media have already been supplanted (is that the word?) with CPC directors or 買通. Which explains why there is no source actively talking or promoting HK independence anymore. A 25-30% preference for independence is likely not real. Personally I think that number should be much higher, maybe 60%. What this movement need is a internationally-watched vote to decide the future of the territory, whether it is called an independence effort or not. I personally like the Neutrality route if people are to get serious about this. Benjwong (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was a bit surprised by the inquiry because few people talk about this topic nowadays. The implement of independence is nearly impossible for the current situation, unless any significant reforms rise in the PRC. Andyso(talk page) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Independence is difficult. But that is NOT the only option. The other possibility is to implement something like a "Permanent administrative region with suffrage". This buys both HK and the PRC a lot of time and trust to workout all kinds of issues. Basically there is no 2047 deadline to expire. It puts HK in a similar status as Vatican city. PLA continues to have full rights in the South China sea. HK can hold a vote every 10 years with a chance to fully integrate with the PRC when the citizens feel they are ready. Mainland is not showing any signs that they can fix their problems in 50 years, that is fact. Benjwong (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


Support Hong Konger Front should really be a section within the Hong Kong independence movement article. T@vatar (discuss–?) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The advocacy of Hong Kong or Taiwan independence has become illegal.[16]"

Can anyone verify the source for this? I can't find anything that states that this is the case.

- It's incorrect. Advocating such things is only a breach of oath for lawmakers. In the Mainland it may be considered an act of treason but there is no law in Hong Kong that stops people from advocating for independence. ~~Mav. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.136.105 (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This article should not exist

There's no such "movement" in Hong Kong at all; it's just an incitement for "independence" from a website. Their idea is just plain silly, and no one with rational mind would take much notice of it. STSC (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I would not say it is a silly idea, there is hardly a "movement" for Hong Kong independence now. I agree the article should at least be largely edited and modified if not deleted.--Lmmnhn (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please Fix

The article says The Hong Kong independence movement (Chinese: {{{3}}}), where did the 3 come from, I can see in the source code that the template syntax in correct, please fix this --TheChampionMan1234 22:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong independence. 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) 18:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ming Pao poll

@Yue: You stated in your edit summary that the poll was not scientific. Do we have a reason to believe that is the case, as opposed to say the SCMP poll? Reverted your last change for now. Fermiboson (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong_independence/Archive_1&oldid=1226948780"