Humanities desk
< August 11	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 12

Number of Hong Kong SAR passport holders

While reading Visa policy of Japan I noticed that Hong Kong residents entered Japan 1.8 million times, which is almost 25% of Hong Kong's population. That's pretty impressive.

Though of course not all Hong Kong residents hold a Hong Kong SAR passport, so the actual ratio would be even higher. I'm trying to find this ratio.

1. How many people qualify for the Hong Kong SAR passport? I.e. how many permanent residents of Hong Kong are also Chinese citizens. For most countries this number is roughly equal to their population, but Hong Kong has a significant expat population and situations like Filipinos in Hong Kong, hence the question.

2. Approximately how many Hong Kong SAR passport are currently issued? Mũeller (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opening sentence hints that you may have misread the statistics. I think they mean 1.8m entries, not 1.8m people. I am sure there will be businesspeople working in Japan and commuting home to Hong Kong at weekends (not much fun, but doable), and fashionistas who pop over to Tokyo for shopping several times a year.

1. Chart A105 of the By-census results shows that in July 2016 there were 6,646,415 Chinese nationals with HK domicile in the SAR. You would need to add to that those SAR domiciliaries outside HK. There half a million Hong Kong Canadians, about 100,000 Hong Kong people in the United Kingdom, and 40,000 in Australia (according to an unlinkable Google snippet from The Economist). Not all of those would qualify for SAR passports (significant numbers of white Brits were born in HK), but we're probably looking at half a million who would qualify in the Five Eyes countries. In addition, the 2010 census found a quarter of a million HKers living in the Mainland; I know several Mainlanders who would go over to Okinawa for weekend breaks, so I am sure HKers in the Mainland would be overrepresented in the Japanese stats. Overall, I'd guesstimate 7.1-7.5 million would qualify. I don't think the Chinese authorities know themselves, because the Nationality law of the People's Republic of China isn't completely clear about certain cases of potential statelessness.

2. The HK government must have the actual number, but I couldn't find it. You could ask the Immigration Department using the suggested form, but they're not obliged to tell you. Can we work it out? 2.7m BN(O) passports were issued before 1997, so that must be the absolute lower limit for SAR passports (a recent report claimed 3.4 million BN(O) holders in 2016, but I suspect they have misread our article). In 2002, 2 million SAR passports had been issued. This was almost exactly five years after the handover, when about half of British Hong Kong passports were still valid. Assuming passports were renewed at a steady rate would suggest a figure around the 4 million mark. There were 587,462 passport applications in the SAR in 2011, while 703 309 passports were issued in the SAR in 2016. I have a suspicion that 1996-97 will have seen a peak in passport applications, and therefore that 2016 will have seen an above-average number of renewals. I'd also expect a secular increase as a result of globalization and economic growth. So I'd guess you're looking at about 6-7m SAR passport holders. Matt's talk 01:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hong Kong residents entered Japan 1.8 million times" unambiguously means 1.8 million entries. I was clear and correct in what I wrote. I don't know how you could have interpreted "1.8 million Hong Kong residents entered Japan" from what I wrote. Mũeller (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't word that well. But it's a critical point and I have often seen people misread those stats in that way, so I wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Matt's talk 02:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny point - some of the foreign-resident Hong Kong emigrants would have left Hong Kong and settled in those countries before 1997, and so the normal rule on loss of Chinese nationality would have applied to them (so that they would not have become Chinese citizens), rather than the special "interpretation" which applies to Hong Kongers of Chinese descent who were resident in Hong Kong in 1997 (even if they already had foreign citizenship), who would have automatically acquired Chinese citizenship in 1997 and not been able to shake it off without an express renunciation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Matt's talk 09:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The HK-to-Japan travel data undoubtedly includes repeat visitors. Hong Kong permanent residency does not qualify one for a HK SAR passport; there are other qualifications to meet (including not holding any other passport). The non-citizen population of Hong Kong is extremely difficult to assess since the vast majority of the people do not need a passport to enter and leave. Rough estimates put non-PRs at 500,000 (6-7%). There are also huge numbers of people with dual nationality, whether it is Canadian + HK, Australian + PRC or whatever. The table cited above (A-105) is known to grossly underestimate the number of American passport holders, perhaps by as much as 80%. Full disclosure: I'm a non-Chinese Hong Kong Permanent Resident, but not currently resident in Hong Kong... DOR (HK) (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What became of the Armenian town of Abaraner?

A town in Greater Armenia called Abaraner is named in Western gazetteers and reference books of the 18th and 19th century. How can I find out what happened to it?

Abaraner was the site for a time of a Dominican convent, and was home to about 300 Christian families in the late 18th century. An article in a Dominican publication in 1953 said that the convent in Abaraner and others like it did not survive the late 18th century.

But what about the town?

Mark K. Jensen (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is modern Aparan. The religious history is mentioned in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Nakhchivan. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The final part of that section notes that the remaining Latin Christians decamped to Smyrna in the 18th century. That didn't end well, see Great fire of Smyrna (1922) for the unpleasant details. Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

Can a person that believes in creationism be trusted to look at a wide range of other topics objectivly? Is there any reputable study or the like about responses of people who do and people who do not believe in creationism, analyzing their answers in relation to objective evaluation of certain tasks or questions and the like? Otherwise plain oppinion would be interesting as well i guess. 91.49.86.44 (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could call this a minor detail of a persons world view. It does not necessarily cause a fundamental conflict in ethics, justice, faith in your community or alike big fields, infact not even in science. A Person can be a worldclass mathematician or even a Biologist(!) and believe everything was created by god. --Kharon (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name some modern day mathematicians or biologists, the latter in particular, that are creationist and how respected they and their work is by their colleagues? Their fields of work etc. 91.49.76.230 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki has an article, Lists of creationist scientists but read the "Problems" section first. Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. Sadly many entries there lack any references and/or have no indication of the individuals position and even fewer have articles for themselves for further reading. But at least it is something in regards to that secondary question that has arisen. 91.49.75.182 (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather the point; few of them are actually notable and many aren't really scientists at all. An exception may be Eugene K. Balon, a Canadian ichthyologist who named a fish called Balon's ruffe. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would still be interested in who Kharon thinks is a worldclass biologist who is also a creationist as it was him who brought it up though. Not that it really matters to my original question but as he brought it up, i am sure he can enlighten me with his wisdom. But thank you again for being helpful Alan. 91.49.76.42 (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Creationism" is a rather broad term whose edges are fuzzy; some might define it to include any belief in a god having something to do with life, which would include most if not all theists. More specific terms are generally employed in discussion of religion and theology. Young earth creationism, which is popular among Christian fundamentalists, involves rejecting pretty much all of modern science, so it would be difficult to simultaneously hold such a belief and engage in science, though I wouldn't be surprised if a few people have compartmentalized their minds to the necessary degree. Math and engineering don't necessarily conflict with YEC beliefs. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My original question was less aimed at scientists though. More along the lines of rational thinking and general objectiviy and so on in regards to other things in life unrelated to the actual term in question. It seems that evolution is an established, even proven, fact. And i do realise that there may be a semantic issue with such a broad term. Believing in creationism does not mean by default that one does not believe also in the possibility of evolution etc. So i wonder if a person who cannot or will not comprehend the concept due to their personal beliefs has a general... i don't want to call it deficient but... for lack of better words... mindset in which rational and/or objective thinking is superceded by other things and hence clouded. Let it be politics, ethical problems, justice or whatever. Or more precisely, if there have been reputable sociological studies in some of those areas. And if it would be more prevelant in persons that do believe in creationism, if there is any correlation etc. Obviously people who do not believe in creationism can have "issues" with the like as well so it would not be exclusive to a certain belief system. I may well be wrong in points i raised, hence me asking for sociological studies with somewhat hard data one way or the other to get a better, objective understanding of the issue. 91.49.76.230 (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the article Non-overlapping magisteria interesting. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article raises some interesting points. Also several questions as well but those would lead too far from my original question and go more into a philosophical area so i wont ask them here even if related. Thank you for the food for thought anyway. 91.49.76.42 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So in your conclusion one has to be an atheist to be able of "real" rational and/or objective thinking? We are all (more or less) subjective by default (and therefor every wikipedian should read WP:NPOV)! Much more even, Pluralism is today's central foundation and keystone for our cultural ideal, a peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. --Kharon (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has actually said the words Theistic evolution yet. Some people don't include count that as creationism, some do. We don't know where OP places TE, so we can't say that they're necessarily saying that the only way to be rational is to be atheist.

This report by the National Science Foundation is a few years old and relies on surveys going as far back as 2004 but page 23 includes a chart covering different regions' knowledge of different established facts in science. Pretty much every region has a few established facts that about half of the general public gets so incredibly wrong:

About half of Americans don't get evolution, but they did better than most other regions in understanding lasers, electrons, and heliocentrism.
China only did better than America on evolution. On most of the other questions, half to three-quarters of the regions got things wayyy wrong. (Anecdotal evidence: one of my students believed that The Martian (film) was a documentary... I gave him plenty of opportunity to correct himself, too.)
Evolution aside, the EU was about as knowledgeable about STEM topics as the US, having slightly worse knowledge of radioactivity and antibiotics.
India did just about as poorly as China, just in different areas.
Japan did well only on topics you don't need a microscope for.
About 85% of Malaysians think all radiation is man-made and that lasers are made by focusing sound waves. Over 90% think that antibiotics kill viruses.
Like Malaysia, about two-thirds of Russians think radiation isn't natural, three-quarters think lasers are sound-based, and four-fifths think that antibiotics kill viruses. Russia also has a worse comprehension of the Big Bang and evolution than the US. South Korea's results were similar to Japan's, though the lows were not as severe and Japan understands radiation and evolution somewhat better. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Have i ever said that one has to be an atheist to be able to do that? I have even tried to keep the broader picture of religion out of my questions because, for me, my question has nothing to do with the broader picture of religion but a specific part of a religious belief and its connection to other topics in ones life in correlation to said belief where "objective truth" is disregarded in favor of prefered positions which fit ones beliefs, as for example happens in politics or what have you. Just like arguably happens when refusing to understand or accept the concept of evolution in favor of ones belief so to speak And i am certainly not saying that anyone who is not an atheist is a babbling buffoon or whatever you are trying to insinuate. And no thank you, NPOV has no place here. No article is being written and i am asking for references. Seriously, was i anywhere mean or unreasonable? I am truly sorry you take offense at my question but no need for such a condescending tone here. I was simply wondering if there is a conenction and if there were sociological studies about the topic? Why get offended at me for asking a question and wanting to learn and understand a topic better? Its not like i am trolling or whatever, is it? 91.49.76.42 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian, will check it out. 91.49.76.42 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is perfectly fine if i am wrong in my thinking. Neither am i claiming to always be impartial, rational(as one can see here i guess lol) or what all else. I am not all knowing and the only way to learn is to take a risk to be wrong and ask questions, is it not? 91.49.76.42 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist in fields other than those related to the age of the Earth could still do a job. Of course, that leaves out parts of many fields, from cosmology to nuclear physics (decay rates), geology, biology, anthropology, botany, zoology, etc. But even if they worked in those fields, if they restricted themselves to certain portions, like a biologist who studies brain chemistry without concerning himself with how it evolved, they could do a good job. Note that there is a broader set of scientists who made contributions in their field but went off the rails when outside of their field, like Linus Pauling.

Compartmentalization (psychology) and cognitive dissonance are relevant. StuRat (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue there need be no conflict whatsoever; that one can believe in creationism, even in a fairly literal Old Testament sense, but also believe in conventional theories of evolution and geology. The key question is how time is defined and how many dimensions it has. If, for example, you envision God as a sculptor bent over the universe carefully carving away at it, then the universe is a four-dimensional construct on God's workbench, and the sense of time within the universe is not the sense of time during which God's works occur within God's workshop. This should, of course, be a familiar situation to human authors: Tolkien did not take three thousand human years to write the Lord of the Rings books. It should be emphasized that this is not merely a scale factor; things can be added to the beginning, middle, or end of a story by an author. So there is no reason why God can't add features on various Days of Creation that are out of order compared to how we observe them scientifically. It should also be noted that works outside the universe we currently observe - such as the Garden of Eden or the Great Flood or a flat Earth - could represent parallel universes that were different creations and not linked in any scientifically observable way to our own, and which have different laws of physics, or no laws of physics, even different laws of mathematics.

Based on this kind of logic, I would say that there is no need for a religious belief to interfere with science unless that religious belief specifically projects itself into science (e.g. "evolutionists are all frauds!"). There is no war unless war is pressed upon us. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The General Social Survey asks questions about about belief in evolution and many, many other topics, so it would give you some raw data to work with. As others have made clear, there is a difference between creationism and the doctrine of creation. You really need to specify which of the types of creationism you are asking about. I came across this data through Razib Khan, who has offered some analysis relevant to your question on his blog: [1] [2]. It should be note that Khan is a geneticist, not a sociologist, and some of his other posts are borderline racist, so these are far from being academic studies. Matt's talk 01:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of the above discussion is missing the point. "Creationism" is a vague term that is often substituted for the denial of evolution. Before Darwin's era, the debates were basically between a universe finite or infinite in time (Augustine of Hippo had the modern idea that before the universe there was no time) and between theism and atheism. Almost all the early natural historians were ordained ministers!

Catholics, for example, believe in creation by God, but have no problem with the Big Bang or with evolution. The real issue is fundamentalism, especially biblical literalism, which leads to such symptoms as young-earth creationism. If I found out my physician were a Christian Scientist (?!?) or that he was a biblical literalist, or invited me to pray or participate in faith-healing I wouldn't let him anywhere near my children given his likely views on sexuality, vaccination, and the like. If I found out he believed as a Jew that God created the universe it wouldn't faze me at all.

The real issue with those who say they deny evolution on religious grounds is that they are projecting their own ignorance onto God. In effect, they are saying God can't be smarter than they are, and they are sticking their fingers in their ears when they rationalize that fossils are created by God to test us or are a temptation placed by the Devil. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]