Talk:One country, two systems

Hong Kong to have reverted to a de facto "one country, one system" status

This part has no citation and per my limited knowledge, Hong Kong has not reverted to a De Facto status. Can we remove that part from the intro?--Asad29591 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Domestic

In response to User:Huaiwei's edits: [1] [2]. As I have said in the edit summary [3], I don't think trade, extradition, aviation agreements are domestic affairs. If the word "own" sounds unprofessional, let's look for a good alternative. It's not accurate to say those affairs are all domestic. See also domestic policy. — Instantnood 14:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• domestic policy is a stub. trade is mostly domestic policy and is generally thought of as domestic, extradition, emigration, and aviation are definitely domestic policy - controlling who/what comes in and out. Domestic is an appropriate word here, and besides, there is a laundry list of what things HK controls immediately after which makes it very clear to the reader. SchmuckyTheCat 14:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  Then what is not domestic policy? :-D — Instantnood 17:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Foreign policy dosent really say much either. I would like to point out that most governments of independent states do not lump trade negotiations etc with that of foreign diplomacy. If the two are mixed, Taiwan will be an economical disaster, for example.--Huaiwei 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  Not really. The AIT/Taipei is said to be a de facto embassy in Taiwan. The ROC is said to be having de facto diplomatic relations with many other countries, although not officially recognised. :-) International trade is usually administered separately from diplomatic relations, but it is always a key issue for the relations between two countries. — Instantnood 17:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not really what? These de facto entities dosent add anything to what I was saying, does it? Do they address my point, that if international trade was to be considered foreign policy, and was to form a part of diplomatic relations, then Taiwan is not going to be able to trade with anyone except the likes of the Vatican City?--Huaiwei 17:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

    Seems like there's no such thing as de facto diplomatic relations in your mind. :-) Not only diplomatic relations with official recognition is diplomatic relations. — Instantnood 17:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I'm responding to the RFC for this dispute. I don't know much about Hong Kong and China, but from a simple word choice perspective, both "own" and "domestic" are poor choices. Domestic is simply wrong, as extradition is a distinctly un-domestic issue. Own sounds unprofessional. May I suggest, "The two SARs of Hong Kong and Macau are responsible for most of their governmental affairs, including..." James 20:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you James. I agree with your suggestion. — Instantnood 09:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that "governmental" dosent specify if its internal or external, thus changing the meaning of the sentence. Is this avoidance delibrate, coz if it was so to mediate this situation, then I am ok with it too.--Huaiwei 15:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to encompass both internal and external functions, as it would seem that the SARs do control some of their foreign affairs, as well as basically all their internal affairs. James 18:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

But reality is hardly that clearcut, and that applies to "internal" affairs as well. Would you consider domestic elections of the HK leader internal? I would, but as was well demonstrated in the recent spate of events, Beijing's intervention in the election process was clearly present. In fact, Beijing does have a say in how HK conducts its internal affairs in such a way that it does not contravene or erode national interests.--Huaiwei 19:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Practically, during the debate over the length of the term of office of the chief executive, it was an intervention. But the Central People's Government in Beijing does posess the power to do so, as the right to interpret the Basic Law, which is a national law, is in the hand of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The administration of the election processes is entirely out of the influence of Beijing. Beijing can only influenced how the members of the electoral college vote by non-structural means. And yes Beijing does have a say over Hong Kong's internal matters, but that's not an intervention. Let's say, the Malaysian government can protest over Singaporean reclamation works in the Strait of Johore. Is that intervention? — Instantnood 19:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are clearly downplaying the serious issues over the state of HK's autonomy, an issue which was very well documented in the press, so I dont think you could feign ignorance on this one. Depending on who you would like to believe, Beijing hand-picked Hong Kong's first leader, and does have an influence over who his sucessor is. Beijing was the one who wrote the HK basic law, which ironically gives it domestic autonomy. But it is precisely so, that it can also choose to reinterpret, amend, or even throw the entire law out of the window if it so prefers. Even the electorial college is well known to be relatively pro-Beijing. Did this come about by chance? Well...seems like the views out there would hardly think this is so. So does Beijing only interfere by "non-structural" means, whatever that is?

Your analogy on the reclamation issue is truly groundbreaking. Any national government can protest or make their views known to their counterpart in another country. But is that intervention? Is that having a say in another's affairs? That will only be true, if the other party's political system actually allows for such an intervention to take place (which is true when it comes to the HK situation). Is this the case between Malaysia and Singapore? No. Would you mind telling us in what way would Malaysia be "intevening" in Singapore's affairs over that particular issue, and if there is anything in Singapore's laws or constitution which states that Singapore's sovereignty is in anyway allowed to be called into question by allowing for direct intervention by any other country on Earth? And can you tell the difference between a case of direct intervention in a country's affairs, and one in which external influences or factors may sway governmental decisions/actions/policies/laws, etc?--Huaiwei 20:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes Beijing can reinterpret the Basic Law, and they can even scrap it if they wish to. But they cannot interfere how the election is held. They can ask the possible contenders to join or not to join the election, but they cannot bar anybody to submit an application form. They can influence the outcome through members of the electoral college who are pro-Beijing, but they cannot interfere the administration of the process of election.

What Beijing says about Hong Kong's internal affairs is intervention? What sort of direct intervention from Beijing is allowed accordling to Hong Kong laws and government structure? What policies in Hong Kong is directly intervened by Beijing? — Instantnood 20:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Two systems within one sovereign State

About my edit [4]: the Chinese equivalent for (sovereign) State, country and nation are all 國/国 (although sovereign State can be more strictly and accurately translated as 主權國/主权国). Many experts in translation, politics and constitutional law have pointed out that the slogan form-like "one country, two systems" formula could be better translated as "two systems within one sovereign state" or "two systems under one sovereignty", or at least "one country with two systems", if the meaning has to be strictly and accurately reflected. — Instantnood 16:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Source it, cite it, make it verifiable. "Many experts" isn't sourced, cited, and verifiable. "translation issues" shouldn't be in the intro paragraph. SchmuckyTheCat 16:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  I read from newspapers. Don't think I do newspapers cutting with everything I read, do you? :-) That's not merely a translation issue, but rather, additional information to help readers understand the exact meaning accurately. — Instantnood 16:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• You are attempting to replace a commonly-known phrase with one laden with a POV from a small segment of society, so of coz it needs to be cited, including scanning your newspaper cutting. If you do not have a habit of cutting papers, and yet want to cite from it, then this is probably a signal that you should start clipping them!--Huaiwei 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder. Mind illustrate your own perception on the similarities and differences among "country", "(sovereign) state" and "nation"? What does the word "country" mean in the phrase "one country, two systems"? — Instantnood 17:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • And how does my personal views matter in this? I dont have a habit of using my personal views in redefining established terms the way you do.--Huaiwei 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not requesting you to redefine anything. Rather, I am interested to know how you perceive the established definitions, and how you would explain it in your own words, for I am not sure if your perception of the established definitions is the same as other people. — Instantnood 17:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation overkill?

Why are there two romanisations for Cantonese listed? Surely its not necessary? --Sumple (Talk) 09:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that 1C2S currently is implemented only in Cantonese-speaking areas, I think one Cantonese romanisation is appropriate. Two, however, could be as you say, overkill. :D -- Миборовский 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an article on this. The romanization of Mandarin was started about 1900 by Wade and Giles and effectively finished with the promulgation of the official Hanyu Pinyin system. Cantonese (linguistics) came along a lot later with every dictionary, grammar, training course etc developing its own incompatible system. So the infobox contains the two most common systems. m.e. 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I'm new to this subject matter, but I am confused by the following sentence in an otherwise very informative article:

"Specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is given a constitutional status through the basic laws."

How do "basic laws" (assuming that these are laws of Hong Kong, not PRC) give the covenant the status of a constitutional element? Do the laws say something like, "this shall be as the constitution" without actually amending the constitution?

This sentence might inform readers who already know how this is handled, but it's not very clear to the naive reader.

Thanks for you consideration.

D'scribed 13:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)d'scribed

Post 50 Years?

I heard it from someone that this system will be abolished after 2047 and 2049 (for HK and Macao, respectively), and that both territories will be forced to convert to Communism, whether they like it or not. Is that true? Arbiteroftruth 07:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly, if you heard it on the internet, it must be true. 24.89.245.62 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added the exact quote from the 2 book sources and there are alot more out there. Benjwong 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the population of Hong Kong and Macau will dwindle and reduce itself as that time comes...

(Unless the PRC made it illegal to emigrate out to a "less-Communist" place.)

88.105.105.48 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism. You are trashing multiple articles by marking everything with need-citations. Benjwong (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's this got to do with the topic?

Shin-chan01 (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Someone just tagged "What will happen after 2047 and 2049 (50 years after the return of Hong Kong and Macao, respectively) is never stated" with a {{need citation}} along with 50 other sentences. The person doing massive tagging is obviously very new to the topic or vandalizing. Is like tagging "water is liquid" with a need citation. Really over doing it. Benjwong (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added a link to the topic. Is really just a proposal. Please don't look for a complete analysis of some sort on this article. Benjwong (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember that the 1C2S system was supposed to last 50 years, and that HK was not to change for 50 years starting in 1997. It would be interesting to dig up the references to what exactly were the conditions for the 50 years rule. Ngchen (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Chapter 1, Article 5 of The Basic Law, "The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years." There is no reference to what happens after that, only what cannot happen before. There is no requirement for anything to change after 50 years, merely a requirement (excluding the possibility of amendment) that certain things do not happen before July 1, 2047. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-determination

I removed the material listing a lack of self-determination, because it was not given by the source, and therefore appears to be original research. Any sourced criticism of 1C2S that involves a lack of self-determination of course does belong in the article. Ngchen (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to proposals for Uugurs?

Comparison to proposals for Uugurs?--Kaiyr (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've marked the "Recent approaches to democracy" section as non-neutral as it is written from a pro-Democracy POV and I don't have time to fix it now. I also fixed the neutrality of the last sentence in the "History of Hong Kong" section (same POV). Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Recent approaches to democracy" section is difficult to read. I suggest that someone with subject knowledge should improve the English used, including breaking up the 81-word sentence. --Rwilkin (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Did a quick rewrite to try and make it a little more neutral, still needs work though Kdm852 (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the POV marker. There is nothing bias about it, if you ask me. Communist China is breaking the treaty that they signed with Britain and the people of Hong Kong in order to impose communism on Hong Kong. That means that writing about it will always show China in a bad light. Not only breaking it's word, but also human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. In 2014 and 2019 massive demonstrations flooded the streets of Hong Kong with as much as 1,7 million demonstrators (out of 6 million inhabitants; maybe 7 million today). If it would be written "neutrally",, I would place a POV marker, because that would mean it was bias towards the communistic takeover.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible citations

• Alvin Y.H. Cheung (May 19, 2015). "Hong Kong’s Not That Special, And Beijing Should Stop Saying It Is"

the legal validity of the 17 points agreement is not accepted by international law experts

Therefore, the section which argues with it is not really neutral. To make it more neutral I added the view of an international law expert who worked for the German government as an expert on this issue. The sentence I added reads:

However, international law expert, Eckart Klein, opposes argumentations based on the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, stating "The so-called Seventeen-Point Agreement of 1951 also in no way constitutes such consent, since, as a contract signed under duress, it is legally invalid." Details here. Kt66 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible issue

the 'One China, Better system' link at the bottom of the page leads to a page on the Chinese wikipedia with no equivalent English article. 2602:306:32B0:F9E0:8D56:D30C:501D:C263 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello, I need help! I added a new reference, No. 7, but cannot understand what this means: The named reference refa1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

This is my first attempt to edit/add a new ref to an article, now I am totally lost and confused. Can anyone guide me in the right direction, or let me know what I have done wrong. I am fairly new at this and am still learning. Thanks a lot in advance. --Purplewing51 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello, I need help! I added a new reference, Nr. 7, but cannot understand what this means: The named reference refa1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

This is my first attempt to edit/add a new ref to an article, now I am totally lost and confused. Can anyone guide me in the right direction, or let me know what I have done wrong. I am fairly new at this and am still learning. Thanks a lot in advance. --Purplewing51 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in One country, two systems

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of One country, two systems's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "law":

• From Greenland: (in Danish) Law of Greenlandic Selfrule (see chapter 7)
• From Restrictions on geographic data in China: "Surveying and Mapping Law of the People's Republic of China". National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation of China.
• From Greenlandic language: Law of Greenlandic Selfrule (see chapter 7)[5] (in Danish)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on One country, two systems. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008210149/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-06/10/c_133396891.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-06/10/c_133396891.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231053934/http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050501.htm to http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050501.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029181422/http://www.roc-taiwan.org/FI/ct.asp?xItem=434137&ctNode=5855&mp=182 to http://www.roc-taiwan.org/FI/ct.asp?xItem=434137&ctNode=5855&mp=182

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) 07:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Emblem of People’s Militia.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Chinese translation is in error, please HELP correct

The opening paragraph in Chinese uses the phrase "One China Better System" which is NOT in the English version.

Regarding my edit

Moved from User talk:Simonm223

Personally I don't believe my edit is disruptive or controversial, yet only a minor rectification one. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit had a substantial impact on WP:NPOV by changing China to Mainland China and by restoring lines that implied Hong Kong is treated, internationally, as a distinct nation. Neither of these things are appropriate in this context. Furthermore, when challenged on an edit, you are supposed to go to article talk rather than edit warring it back in. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I will go over your arguments:

1. You claimed my edit "had a substantial impact on WP:NPOV by changing China". Frankly I too suggest you reading WP:NC-CN before making any assertions on any China-related articles. Back to the article itself, the context is "the rest of the PRC", not "PRC". I don't reckon you can't see the difference here.
2. Regarding my "restoring lines that implied Hong Kong is treated, internationally, as a distinct nation", I am afraid that you may have misunderstood my intention. That HK should go under the name "Hong Kong, China" is explicitly stipulated in Article 151 of the Basic Law. Therefore, I don't consider my edits to be wrong under any circumstance.
3. Since my edit is only challenged by you, I straightforwardly go to your talk page. Hopefully it's not wrong. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Shall we go to the article's talk page per se if appropriate? --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:I have boldly done the move. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong Protests

Being rather interested in the topic, but terrible at creating wiki pages, i'd like to point out that the 2019 Hong Kong Protests must be of some significance to this page, yet there are absolutely no references to it on this page. Might a better wikian be able to add a section for the protests, so that others may know to work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJosh999 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Potential edits for this page

Add a section on the purpose of “One Country, Two Systems”. This is briefly explained but needs to be elaborated more.

Add sources to the implementation section

The section called “Perceptions of the erosion of autonomy of Hong Kong” needs to be updated due to the mass Hong Kong protests beginning in 2019 - initially based on the extradition bill

In response to this section, it might be beneficial to add China’s views on the Hong Kong protests to make the article more balanced Significantly, there has been no significant domino effect on Macau, however, there is a need to add a section elaborating on the way in which the one country, two system works in Macau now.

What is the difference between Hong Kong and Macau? Why are the people of Hong Kong responding more negatively to this setup? To showcase this, there can be a brief added summary of the relationship between Hong Kong and China, in contrast to the relationship between China and Macau.

Add a point on Macau’s economic benefits due to the arrangement with China

A further point that can be added to “Perceptions of the erosion of autonomy of Hong Kong” can be based on ‘moral and national education’, which showcases further censorship about China.

The section on “Taiwan” must be updated too. In 2019, Beijing suggested Taiwan also use the formula of ‘One Country, Two System’, but Taiwan’s president rejected this.

Add a section on predictions for Hong Kong following 2047. Will ‘one country, two systems’ survive?

If China has about 5 systems, why is it called 1 country 2 systems?

Mainland, Taiwan (they insist it is part of China), Tibet, Macau, Hong Kong - they all have different systems actually, where does the 2 come from in 2 systems if there are 5 or more systems? ZhuLien⚡ 1:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.190.174 (talk)

Edit warring

@Read-learn-love: Multiple editors are reverting your edit. Please discuss here. Thanks. Citobun (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Citobun:. I created my own section before I saw this. Please see the section I created below regarding this matter.

Dispute resolution attempt with others regarding my efforts to improve article neutrality and apparent edit warring actions in response

@Citobun: and others involved,

I would like to resolve this dispute amicably.

For public view, here are the changes I made (all within the section "2020 national security legislation"):

Removed: “The erosion of civil and legal protection for citizens under the new national security legislation is part of the larger Chinese effort to turn Hong Kong into a police state like the Mainland.”

And I changed “Beijing's crackdown on civil rights in Hong Kong by passing the national security law for Hong Kong.” to “Beijing passing the national security law for Hong Kong.”

I need everyone to understand my intentions here. I am not Chinese nor do I live in China. I have only visited once a few years ago. I am a caucasian American living in a conservative part of the United States. Though I have my own views, of course, I value fact-based reporting without any hint of bias.

Let me be absolutely clear: The reversions that keep occurring are undermining Wikipedia neutrality and appear to be edit warring behavior. Please see that I am not trying to introduce a pro-Beijing bias to this article. I did not come to this article with any intentions to edit. I was simply reading Wikipedia (as I often do, as I truly love learning), and I came across this section of the article. It was already clear that the article had a anti-Beijing/anti-CCP slant, but this particular section was so brazenly biased that I felt inspired to make an edit. I did not introduce any bias of my own. I simply aimed to remove the overt bias present and make the changes identified above. Others have reverted my changes in whole multiple times now. Again, I think it should be clear that I did not introduce any pro-Beijing propaganda; I am simply aiming to remove some of the most blatant bias for the betterment of Wikipedia.

I would point out that it is a policy of this article to have a neutral point of view. I hope that others will respect that and I will do the same. I hope we can come to an understanding and resolve this dispute without further action or intervention needed.

Wishing everyone well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Read-learn-love (talk • contribs) 04:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Read-learn-love: You are accusing me of "edit warring" when I've only reverted once; you've reverted 3-4 times in spite of multiple editors disagreeing with your edit. And you are doing the same thing at Colour revolution. You are a new account whose entire edit history consists exclusively of edit warring. Pot meet kettle. Please review Wikipedia:Edit warring.

Secondly, I would like to point out that you are casting aspersions against me on the sole basis that I have a link to Apple Daily among numerous other media outlets on my profile (Apple Daily is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia), and evidently also because I am from Hong Kong. Please stop casting aspersions against me.

It is not inherently "biased" to characterise the Chinese government's Hong Kong national security law as eroding Hong Kong's civil rights. Such claims just need to be cited to reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Read-learn-love: What exactly is the objection to The Diplomat? Is this a reliability or due weight dispute? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Citobun: Yes, I am a new editor and I never had any plans to become one. I was just appalled at the bias present here with a lack of due weight. You're right that I have done the same at Colour revolution, for the same reasons. Similarly, there I did not try to remove the claim that color revolutions are associated with democratization. I simply added a due weight to the article description by an adding an additional association with the term that many people have. There are a lot of people in this world and they don't all agree on the topic of color revolutions, or the Hong Kong national security law. I am not looking to censor other views or unfairly promote my own. I am not Chinese; I am American, as I've said. My stated aims here are genuine. I simply want more neutrality and due weight. That is what inspired me to become an editor. That's it. I think that's reasonable. I think my case is easily defensible to any higher-ups at Wikipedia. Since when did this site become a tool for activists rather than a neutral source of knowledge?

How is it biased? BTW, I have encountered multiple political agenda editors here before who felt the need to relentlessly assert their supposed Caucasian Americanness. Citobun (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Citobun: Regarding the particular issue I have here in this article, the characterization of what the Chinese government is doing in Hong Kong, what Hong Kong is becoming, or what the Chinese government's intentions are in Hong Kong are clearly worded in a way that aligns with an anti-Beijing view. I respect your right to believe that that view comports with reality and facts, but it is far from universally agreed to be the case. Millions of people strongly disagree with such characterizations and would argue similar accusations against other countries such as the US. However, you do not see me trying to push an anti-US posture on US pages. I am just trying to bring some neutrality here. And, yes, I did feel the need to point out the fact that I am "Caucasian American", because sadly I could foresee people believing that I am Chinese (either China-based or living abroad) and coming here with a political agenda. My agenda here is to resist political agendas (with of course particular concern for those I disagree with, as I don't have time to go through Wikipedia fighting all political agendas, both those I agree with or disagree with). I prefer to maintain my anonymity, as I imagine you do too, but I take your word for it that your background is what you represent it to be and do not appreciate you subtly/implicitly casting aspersions (to use your own phrase) that I am an editor with a political agenda whose claimed identity is "supposed" (implying I am lying). Yes, my beliefs differ from yours, let's not be coy - but I am not trying to push my beliefs here. I am not trying to claim my beliefs are fact without bias. I am just trying to be fair and the bad faith here is breath-taking. I will not waste too much time if I do not see any intention to be fair start to show itself. I hope and pray that Wikipedia leadership above us is not themselves biased and is committed to neutrality and fairness, if it comes to that. Please check your attitude and I am ready to cool things down as soon as you are. Otherwise, I will follow Wikipedia's stated procedure on how to proceed when "one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution". I will stop editing myself at this point.

@Horse Eye's Back and Horse Eye's Back: My objection is a due weight dispute. I would be open to a compromise that allowed for the presentation of both sides in the article. It is my late my time and I need to sleep soon, so I would ask that we maintain the neutral changes I've made until any such compromise has been established. Reverting my changes before that time would be unfair as my changes did not introduce new bias but simply removed what I saw as brazen bias.

Read-learn-love (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC) User:Read-learn-love (User talk:Read-learn-love) 04:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If you’re making a due weight argument then you either support its inclusion or you don't, there is no way to make a due weight argument which goes both ways. Either something is worthy of inclusion or it isn’t, other information being present or not doesn’t make any difference in terms of due weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back and Horse Eye's Back: Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "due weight" then. I assumed that meant giving two sides equal representation in the article. If it was my choice, though, I would simply keep my original changes - that is, I argue for the exclusion of the content I excluded, as I don't feel it is worthy of inclusion. I don't know how the viewpoint of the majority of people in a country of 1.4 billion people can just be so easily dismissed while it's opposing view can be seen as neutral "fact". As an alternative to my original changes, I am open to both views being presented alongside each other. But I think it makes more sense to just keep my original changes.

Anyway, I don't think people here are engaging in good faith discussion...sadly. I will wait for now to see if the attitude here changes. Otherwise, if it doesn't, then I will follow Wikipedia's stated procedure on how to proceed when "one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution". I will stop editing myself at this point. Wishing everyone well...

Please review WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I will let the undoing/reversion of my edits stand for now, to make efforts to follow Wikipedia policies. But let's discuss. I have looked at the articles you have sent, and I understand the terms correctly. I will assume good faith if it's returned and we can now discuss due weight and other ways to address concerns of neutrality here. You stated that "No coherent policy based argument has been presented to remove". Fine, let's have that discussion then.

https://www.thinkchina.sg/between-us-and-china-which-police-state

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Q4lGwhJW8

There are consequences to this type of heated rhetoric: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/09/asia/hong-kong-stabbing-aftermath-intl-hnk-dst/index.html

See: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-08/24/c_139314489.htm

"...Mike Pompeo: The CCP has tightened its grip on Hong Kong, where democracy and freedom are suppressed.

  False.
  Fact check: For more than 150 years under the British colonial rule, there were no democracy in Hong Kong, as none of the governors were elected by the Hong Kong people, and its legislators were directly appointed by the governor for most of the time. In sharp contrast, after Hong Kong's return to the motherland, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) enjoys executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the Basic Law of the HKSAR. Hong Kong people have been running their own affairs in the HKSAR with a high degree of autonomy. Hong Kong residents enjoy unprecedented and extensive democratic rights and freedoms, which is an undeniable truth for all people without prejudice.
  -- It is enshrined in the constitutions of more than 100 countries that the exercise of basic rights and freedoms shall not endanger national security. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes it clear that freedoms of religious belief, expression and peaceful assembly, the right to a public trial and other rights may be subject to restrictions that are necessary to protect national security, public order among others. There are similar provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights. What has happened in Hong Kong over the past year clearly reveals that it is impossible for Hong Kong to achieve prosperity and stability without safeguarding national security. During the turbulence over the amendment bill last year, the rioters flagrantly preached "Hong Kong independence", engaged in mass illegal violent activities, vandalizing facilities and attacking innocent civilians. They challenged the governance of the HKSAR government and escalated their violent terrorist activities. External forces became emboldened in their unlawful meddling in Hong Kong affairs. These have gravely threatened the life and property of Hong Kong residents and undermined investor confidence. The main reason for the instability and chaos was that the foundation of national security was not firm enough. The enactment of the law on safeguarding national security in Hong Kong is aimed to plug loopholes in the HKSAR national security legislation.
  -- The legislation only targets four types of offences, namely, secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security. It is designed to deter and punish a handful of criminals seriously jeopardizing national security, and to protect the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Hong Kong people. All efforts and law enforcement relating to safeguarding national security will be conducted in strict accordance with legal provisions, mandates and procedures. The legislation will not affect the rights and freedoms, including those of speech, of the press, of publication and of assembly that Hong Kong residents enjoy under the law. It will enable them to better exercise their lawful rights and freedoms in a secure environment.
  -- The enacted legislation will not affect the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under the law. It will not affect the HKSAR's independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. There will be no change to the policy of "one country, two systems", the capitalist system practiced in the HKSAR, the high degree of autonomy, or the legal system of the HKSAR. The legislation will better safeguard the lawful rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents, ensure its high degree of autonomy, and create conditions for resolving deep-rooted problems concerning its economy and livelihood. It will contribute to Hong Kong's rule-of-law and business environment, address the concerns in the business communities on social turbulence, and create better conditions for people around the world who are willing to work, invest and live in Hong Kong.
  -- The legislation meets the aspiration of the people. Nearly 3 million Hong Kong residents signed up in support of the law in just eight days. An online signing campaign against external interference by the U.S. and other forces have got support from 1.65 million people in half a month. The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and other chambers of commerce made announcements to support the legislation, pointing out that it is monumental in Hong Kong's future development and will help restore social stability. None of the 4,000 regional headquarters and offices of multinationals operating in Hong Kong left the city. The Hang Seng Index kept opening higher and maintained an up-trend after the implementation of the legislation and despite the U.S. announcement of revoking Hong Kong's special status. All these have directly reflected that the legislation is favored by the financial market."

I understand that Xinhua is operated by the government of China directly or indirectly; but this does not mean privately owned media elsewhere does not have its own biases, as well. I am fine with an opposing view being noted alongside the original claims/characterizations I take issue with, but my argument here is that China's actions in Hong Kong can be seen as justifiable for national security reasons and the negative characterizations of its actions can be seen as unfair. See what happens in Western countries when similar movements gain traction: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/europe/catalonia-separatists-verdict-spain.html

More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-nl0Hklwvg

https://popularresistance.org/we-are-not-fooled-by-the-hong-kong-protests/

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/cpm5q1/we_need_a_serious_discussion_on_the_overwhelming/

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/27/revolution-isnt-being-televised?fbclid=IwAR23Xk9pTdMcxQof4rjCFBO3DZM5RTv9n7u4WPOJt5iulwUYfRGCGfBSSCU

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/08/17/hong-kong-protest-washington-nativism-violence/

https://www.mintpressnews.com/hong-kong-protests/259202/

Besides for the NYT none of those are WP:RS and the NYT does not appear to be saying what you are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Removed section

Due to the growing pressure for the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to engage in the cross-strait development over the past recent years developed by KMT-CPC, the DPP finally softened its stance on its Taiwan independence movement when the former chairman Frank Hsieh visited Mainland China on 4–8 October 2012, a groundbreaking visit by the highest rank in DPP, although he claimed that this trip was done in his private capacity and as a non-politician. The DPP also established its party China Affairs Committee on 21 November 2012 and proposed the Broad One China Framework (simplified Chinese: 大一中原则; traditional Chinese: 大一中原則) on 27 May 2014 led by former chairman Shih Ming-teh.

I removed the above section since it doesn't discuss "one country, two systems" at all. Not every cross-strait development needs to be included here unless it's needed for context for understanding the term and how the term has been interpreted/used by various involved parties. DrIdiot (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Should we keep the wikification from "unites China" to Chinese unification which is mainly about Taiwan?

Apokrif (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)