Talk:Hong Kong

Some issues with this article[edit]

Orientation: Hong Kong Island, last sentence—“ Nearby, the Legislative Council (LegCo) continues to make the laws that organise the territory.” This suggests the article hasn’t been updated since the executive and legislative branches moved to Tamar.

History, last sentence—“ Look carefully and you'll see evidence of the PRC's sovereignty at the top of flagpoles, and in the inconspicuous but huge PLA barracks situated in the midst of the city's business district.” There is no military barracks in ‘the midst of the city’s business district,’ just a near-empty building formerly known as the Prince of Wales Building. Most of the troops are either in the New Territories or (for senior officers) on the South Side of Hong Kong Island.

Get [sic] around, By taxi, paragraph 8— “All taxis are radio equipped and can be reserved and requested via an operator for a token fee of $5, payable to the driver.” Not all. Independent drivers may not have radios, but instead rely on mobile phones.

My first visit here, so I won't edit. DOR (HK) —The preceding comment was added by 210.176.69.125 (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome! Your reticence to edit right away is understandable but misplaced. Since you see the problems, you have the knowledge to plunge forward and edit them. So please do. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currency Decimal Place[edit]

Question: Should prices in Wikivoyage for Hong Kong have 1 or 2 decimal places?

(This was started by a discussion in the HK Airport Article: Talk:Hong_Kong_International_Airport#Currency_decimal_place )

In Hong Kong, there is no coin smaller than 10 cent, and therefore most prices in the territory are represented by one decimal place (i.e. HKD $98.7, HKD $3.4 )

For example: when you take the MTR (HK subway), proces are listed thus:

When speaking to shop owners, they will give you prices in the format of "Eight Point Nine Dollar"

To prevent confusion, should we make all Hong Kong prices in the one decimal format? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although to paraphrase my current proposal for our Wikivoyage:Currency page at User:W. Frank/$2, However, don't knock yourself out "correcting" $27 to HKD27.0 - there is more important work to be done in plunging forward and writing an up-to-date and accurate free Travel Guide!" --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the record $27 should not be changed to $27.0 since it is never written like that in Hong Kong. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History question[edit]

The current text includes the sentence:

After the war, despite American assurances that Hong Kong would be restored to China, the British moved quickly to regain control of Hong Kong.

Did America actually give assurances on that?

I know they helped the Kuomintang grab Manchuria and Taiwan, which had not been under Chinese control before the war, and tried to mess up the French in Indochina, and some British writers were quite angry because thought their ally tried to betray them over Hong Kong. However, this is the first I have heard of any such promise. Pashley (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that text. Recently there has been a lot of discussion around the Japanese Senkaku islands, and how the United States may or may not have 'promised' them to China/Taiwan or Japan after WW2. I think the truth is that in the messy aftermath of WW2 there just wasn't a definitive truth on what has been agreed for any of these territories. I think we should remove this text, since the political discussions shouldn't really belong in WikiVoyage anyhow. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote some of the history in order to make it more clean and concise. I think the writing style has some issues since whoever wrote the history section really liked to use a lot of commas. Since I am British, perhaps someone can check my edits to make sure that I haven't been biased ^-^ --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Island in Get in[edit]

"Get in" has a section on Hong Kong Island which is about getting to the island from other parts of HK. Unless there's some obscure reason for this, I will move it to "Get around". Nurg (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nurg (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

Someone just added some advice for exchanging money with 'street money exchange vendors'. I assume this is referring to the tiny booths found around Hong Kong that exchange money. Is this the right term for this service, or should it be something else? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to convert 'Outlying Islands' to region article[edit]

I have raised a proposal on the Outlying Islands Talk page. I am highlighting here since perhaps more people are monitoring the Hong Kong article.

Talk:Hong_Kong/Outlying_Islands

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sub-regions of districts[edit]

Little structure admin question. I see that there are now separate articles for Peng Chau and Cheung Chau. What is the best way to position these articles? Should they be districts of Hong Kong or should Honk Kong and Hong Kong/Outlying Islands be made regions or should the information be merged back into Outlying island article? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking this on the Talk:Hong_Kong/Outlying_Islands page. Basically I had a problem with different islands being in the same one article. For example two 'eat' listings for both Cheung Chau and Lamma on the same article is confusing since the traveler will (likely) only visit one island in a day, not both. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Metro map is in Chinese[edit]

The MTR (Metro) map is completely in traditional Chinese! Does anyone have a good English version to hand? Otherwise I will try and change it later. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put school children selling charity badges?[edit]

I removed the following sentence from 'Learn'

"Visitors to Hong Kong will soon notice that school children wear 'British-style' uniforms that have been adapted to the sub-tropical climate. It's a tradition for school students to sell 'flags' (badges) and collect money for charity on a Saturday morning twice a month."

I'm not sure where is the appropriate section to place this? Maybe it should be here at all? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrations?[edit]

I am seeing much news about "Occupy Central", pro-democracy demonstrations, thousands in the streets, blocked traffic, tear gas, ...

What warnings or other comments do we need? Pashley (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of now a warning box in the Stay safe section should be enough? If things get really bad it can be moved to the top of the page and expanded. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a brief warning at the top of the page. The main reason is that HK is pretty small and the demonstrations are happening right in the central area where pretty much all travellers will visit. (I'm a HK resident) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now composed a warning and put it at the top of the page as suggested. If something there's incorrect etc. feel free to fix it. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just perhaps the wording around military intervention? Deployment of the PLA against Hong Kong residents would be an extremely serious and hopefully unthinkable development for the time being. That said, it is an unprecedented situation for the territory. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday night they said it in the news, on the other hand reporters always like to over-dramatize stuff. You and others who actually are in Hong Kong probably have more accurate information of what's actually going on. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only visit HK every few months and am not there right now. I think from a traveler perspective the demonstrations are more a big inconvenience than a travel risk. I would suggest anyone visiting HK over the next week should try and avoid Hong Kong island and maybe spend more time in Kowloon / New Territories or go visit Macau.

On the other hand it is completely safe to go see the demonstrations (apparently the most polite in the world).

It is also worth noting that this coincides with Chinese National holiday, and there will be (literally) millions of mainland Chinese visiting at the same time. All things considered I'm glad I'm not there right now :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, CBS radio here in the US reported that democracy demonstrations have spread to Macau, too, so anyone planning a trip to the area might want to check on that. BBC World Service reported yesterday or today that China has pledged not to send the PLA into the streets of Hong Kong, but how this will unfold really is anyone's guess, and I wish the people well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? 04:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think they're both good, but the new one is a bit more pleasant for me to look at, so I slightly favor it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new banner is only 2100 pixels wide, which doesn't adapt as well to high definition screens. Against until a higher resolution version can be created. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know we don't have any higher reqirements for resolution than 1800 pix. Did I miss anything? I like the new one better, the current one though having a more original composition, is reather too dark. Danapit (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the language in the exhibition was that 1800 pixel was the minimum, but 2100 was the recommended minimum, but looking again it doesn't seem to be clear. I believe the new suggested Banner template will start scaling higher resolution images for different screens so I'll look at that as soon as I have some time. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean 2100 pix will not be enough in the future? Danapit (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2100 pix banners will still work fine, but the existing banner template already downloads a higher resolution banner (if available) if the device uses a high definition screen (including my phone). A 4200 pix banner will look better on my Retina screen than a 2100 pix one, and I would assume the high definition screen will become ubiquitous on both desktop and mobile over the next few years. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there currently a policy against dark banners? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in a night picture? I certainly hope not, and I say that despite preferring the new banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no policy on banners at all. I created an experimental one (non-binding) here: Wikivoyage:Banners Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both are great but current is more breathtaking Syced (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was a slight majority (3:2) to use the new banner, I went ahead and fixed my major sticking point which was the low resolution. The new banner now has a higher resolution (7000x1000) here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hong_Kong_Banner.jpg --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New banner suggestion[edit]

I'm not quite satisfied with the current banner, since all it shows is the harbour at night, and the lighting effect just doesn't quite work for me.

I found another image that shows a view over the city from somewhere on Victoria peak that makes me think it is much more in the spirit of the city.

Would this be a good change? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gut reaction: No, because the person on the near right is a strange sight in that panorama and distracting. I think I also like the composition of the current banner better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independence[edit]

There are a very small minority of people in Hong Kong who desire independence from China. It is really inaccurate to suggest that independence is desired by the people of Hong Kong.

This is a travel guide. There are fringe political beliefs in any country, but that doesn't mean we need to list every single one. It is misleading to suggest that you will encounter a desire for Hong Kong independence, although it is more helpful and accurate to explain that you will find people who want more autonomy and less interference from mainland China. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there was a independence demonstration on August 5th. The size was pretty small compared to the umbrella protests last year, but potentially this could grow. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could grow, it could dwindle, it could disappear. Best to take things as they are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as stated my preference is for the current text. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling[edit]

The "By Bicycle" section says:

> See Cycling in Hong Kong

That's a link to https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Hong_Kong#By_Bicycle

I think that link is broken. It just takes me to the top of the page. Where should it point to?

Currency symbol is confusing[edit]

Hello everyone! In some sections of the article (for example in "Obtaining a visa to Mainland China") prices are mentioned sometimes as HKD and sometimes as $. Now, as a european foreigner, I tend to think that $ means American Dollar and HKD Hong Kong Dollar. Since the two symbols are not consistent through the article I have no idea whether mentioned prices are correct or (as I suspect) the symbol $ has been applied to HKD as well. [-unsigned comment by unregistered editor]

Thank you for bringing this up. The $ sign is used to express about three dozen different currencies around the world, usually called "dollars" or "pesos". Our convention in Wikivoyage (see WV:$) is generally to use the symbol that travellers will see on the country they are visiting, so in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, "$" means the Canadian, Australian or NZ dollar respectively. In cases like Mexico, where hotels and tour companies will often show prices in US dollars, we insist on disambiguating the currency symbol, i.e., using M$ or US$ as the case may be, even though the Mexican pesos is usually denoted just by "$" in the country.

When I was in Hong Kong ten years ago, I don't remember seeing prices in US dollars, so "$" always meant HK dollars. But maybe things have changed.

The Hong Kong#Buy section does advise readers that "You can safely assume that the '$' sign used in this travel guide and in the territory refers to HKD unless it includes other initials (e.g. US$ to stand for US dollar)." We could be clearer by adding a line into the Buy sections of each of the district articles to remind readers of this. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MTR issues[edit]

Swept in from the pub

With the earlier discussion of the Hong Kong MTR in Kowloon, I thought we should look at the lack of lines displaying properly with the mapshapes template for it. Only 3 lines of the MTR are displayed, which is probably the worst I have ever seen. MSG17 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 out of 15 is my guess; most may not be mapped out in OSM or if they are; link not provided in OSM to Wikidata item and/or vice versa? Not that familiar with template interaction with OSM, but this should be a definite concern not only for MTR, but others as well... == Matroc (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, missing OSM data is a concern in general. However, sometimes I notice strange behavior where the OSM data exists and is linked, but doesnt show up. Other times the lines show up even without OSM data, like something else influences what lines show up in general. One thing with MTR I am looking at is taking away the link with the Airport Express wikidata and the *superrelation* on OSM, only leaving it on the actual lines. But that will take time to update, since the OSM-Wikidata link is notoriously slow. Of course, the wikidata page will still use the OSM superrelation. MSG17 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland Chinese visa[edit]

I was wondering if we should keep the section about getting a mainland Chinese visa under the "Get In" section. My take is that since this article is about Hong Kong, the "Get In" section should be focussed on getting into Hong Kong, so I don't think that section is appropriate. We can mention about the " China Travel Services" office in the "Hong Kong International Airport" section, as that would be convenient for travellers who need to get a mainland Chinese visa for onward travel to know, but I think it has absolutely nothing to do with Hong Kong Immigration, and therefore does not belong in that section. The dog2 (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Train station article template[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I figured that West Kowloon station has a lot of info that would make it too big and maybe too specific for the main article, such as customs processes, some ticketing quirks and tons of retail space (people may have specific recommendations for food, drink and shopping in the station, for example, and one can't exactly exit the station to get food outside and get back inside quickly due to customs). Since it is meant as a transport hub in Kowloon, it also has a lot of options, with many public transit and footbridges stops and connections. So I made this in userspace, using the airport article template to make the groundwork. This is pretty unorthodox, so I want to ask the community about it.

Don't worry about the dynmap for mainland trains, although when more connections open up it could probably become too complex to maintain it is simple to just remake that section to talk about some major cities served from Hong Kong.

If it doesn't seem to be good for an article, then I will simply make sure that the revelant info goes on the right pages.

Thank you for your input.

MSG17 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we've never made a separate article for a railway station. Even London's St Pancras station, which has immigration checks for those headed for France or Belgium, doesn't have one. But if there's enough information to warrant a separate article, I don't see why not, in the same way that we have separate airport articles. The dog2 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if we had a railway station article type similar to the airport article template? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. How about we take that discussion to the pub and see what people say? The dog2 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. If there are train stations with places to eat, sleep, etc., it would make sense to give them a separate article with a particular kind of template. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although I'm not sure how many train stations, even major ones, would fit this bill. Especially with hotels - most don't have any in them, and West Kowloon is probably one of very few that might have a direct connection to some. But yes, we should go to the pub and see how everyone feels. Besides, security can lead to some restrictive access to outside facilities, and some stations (maybe more in East Asia due to commuter lunches and bigger retail complexes) do have tons of food and drink options that a traveller would have to know about. MSG17 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will now move this discussion to the pub. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So now it's in the pub, here's the basic question, should we create separate articles for train stations like we do for airports? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes these stations too complicated for them to just be listings in city articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airports are generally speaking in the middle of nowhere and most people who are there either leave as fast as they can or cannot leave. None of that is really true for train stations where the whole joke is that they are close in. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm sort of ambivalent about this, if you are travelling from London St Pancras, you'll clear both British outbound and French inbound immigration checks at the station if you are boarding the trains to France or Belgium, so you'll definitely need extra time compared to if you are boarding a domestic train. Of course, Hong Kong West Kowloon is different in that it does not have domestic trains, and all trains are bound for mainland China, so everyone needs to go through both Hong Kong and mainland China customs and immigration. The dog2 (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difficulty in simply mentioning that in the listing for the train station? I guess my feeling is that if so much content is required that it starts to overwhelm the article, we could possibly consider a separate article, but I don't see why it can't just be a section in an existing destination article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ikan Kekek. Show us a city article that has way too much information on a specific railway station, and then we can create a dedicated station article template. I note that the specific example of West Kowloon has only one short paragraph's worth of content on the HK article, which has apparently been sufficient for some time.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, West Kowloon has only opened about a week ago. However, the consesus is correct - most stations really don't have enough info that they require their own article. The main rationale for me was that West Kowloon has extensive security checks for all passengers, so passengers would be stuck there for a while like in an airport and thus might have to buy there. It also helps that it has links to all sorts of public transport and some sights of its own. Since most railway stations, even major ones, are nothign like that ~~(and train food doesn't exactly have the best reputation)~~(nevermind, see below), there isn't much info to add, as you noted. So yeah, it is probably best to look into migrating the content to fit the Hong Kong article. MSG17 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"train food" doesn't have the best reputation? Where did you get that from? Just the other day we had perfectly delightful Mexican food at Munich main station... And unlike airplane food, food in trains is actually unaffected by the fact that you're in a metal tube.Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to train food, you should try the ekiben next time your visit Japan. Some of them are actually pretty decent. And I've also had pretty decent tea eggs on the trains in China before they even built the first high speed line. The dog2 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political Protests[edit]

BBC item - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-48615161, looks like this could be prolonged. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The authorities are it seems likely to pesue a more aggressive response - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49540751 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on passengers[edit]

If police and protestors have targeted passengers, isn't it important to state that? Right now, after a supposedly "fair" edit, only "mobs" are identified as having attacked passengers. That seems neither fair nor sufficiently informative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's true, it should be included. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it, so go ahead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but let's try to keep this a focused warning for travellers, rather than a reporting on the protests. Long warnings are less effective than concise ones. Ground Zero (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long warnings — you mean long in content, not long in length displayed? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also, keeping it short is a good way of keeping away from taking sides.

But on that point, the Wikipedia article says that it was "white shirt" thugs linked to Triads who were attacking protesters on the subway, not the anti-government protesters attacking people. Ground Zero (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The foxnews story linked above is about "white shirts". I saw a TV news clip at the weekend which appeared to show excessive police force on the MTR, but it is hard to conclude anything from a 30 second clip, see this South China Morning Post article for a police response on this. I have seen suggestions elsewhere that travellers should avoid wearing black or white shirts so that they are not mistaken for those involved - should we add something similar? I think that we should suggest caution in travelling on the MTR, either because of the possibility of attack, or because stations may close with no warning (this is a change from the early days of the protests when the MTR were criticised for transporting protesters). AlasdairW (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese police or Hong Kong police? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong police. I don't think that the Chinese have become directly involved. There have been "manoeuvres" just over the border, and the Chinese garrison recently made more of a show of an annual changeover. AlasdairW (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're fair and clearly show who has been endangering visitors or other bystanders, we shouldn't worry too much about someone thinking we're thereby "taking sides". Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that we should avoid implicitly endorsing either the protesters or the Chinese government. Our policy has been not to take sides in political disputes, and that should apply to the Hong Kong situation too. As for violence, while I don't deny the violence committed against the public by some police officers, there were also cases of protesters attacking passengers trying to get to their flights at the airport, and two mainland Chinese journalists were beaten up by the protesters, so it is by no means only the police that have been violent. That said, I do think we can include a warning about violence and severe disruption on the MTR since that is something that will impact travellers. For that matter, even if you don't take the MTR, roads are often blocked by the protesters, so other forms of transport are disrupted too. The dog2 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you're missing the point. Serving the traveler means identifying and describing the source of danger, whoever and wherever it is. Being less informative out of a misplaced fear of offending one side or the other means ill serving the traveler. And your assumption that being more informative requires seeming to support one side is different from what I've been arguing but seems like a pretty eloquent statement in itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The problem I had with the original was that it had a focus on police violence while completely ignoring protester violence. As I said, there were also cases of civilians being attacked by protesters, so if we only mention the police violence, it will seem that we are taking the side of the protesters. If you want to mention that the police, protesters and counter-protesters have all targeted bystanders, I'll be fine with that. The dog2 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be multiple groups of people who could annoying and/or dangerous to a traveller. I think they all need to be mentioned as long as it is kept short overall. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess the problem is how to keep it concise. And one thing I forgot to point out is that Western, and especially American media does have a bit of a pro-Western anti-Chinese bias, whether it's Fox News, MSNBC, CNN or whatever, so that may give you the impression that the police are the only ones who have been violent, and the protesters were all innocent victims. I suggest having a look in the Singapore media for a more nuanced take on the situation. The dog2 (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is the kind of in-the-weeds discussion that we don't need to have. Let's focus concretely on the risks to travelers and guidance for how to avoid them, without getting into contentious and disputed issues like who exactly attacked who and who's to blame for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, should we make a specific warning for mainland Chinese visitors? I think it's fair to say that the risk of being attacked by the protesters goes up if you are mainland Chinese due to the strong anti-China sentiments among the protesters. In fact, two mainland Chinese journalists were attacked by the protesters and had to be hospitalised. The dog2 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But can we agree that making it any longer than it is now will make it worse? If we absolutely have to add any more, can we delete something else do that it doesn't turn into a long treatise on the conflict that readers might just skip over? Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless we direct readers to an updated stay safe section. I think that it could be up to double the present length. It may be worth saying that demonstrations are mainly at the weekend, and that travel checks at the border going to China may be extensive than usual. AlasdairW (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on this. We should try to be as concise as we can, while still including all the information that is necessary for travellers to know. As I said, we should try to avoid taking sides in the political conflict where possible, while still aiming to be fair in assessing the risk faced by potential travellers. The fact remains that no tourists have been victims of police violence yet. All attacks against bystanders have been carried out by either the protesters or pro-China counter-protesters, not the police. To my knowledge, all the police violence has been targeted against the protesters, so realistically, the only way a traveller would be impacted by police violence is by being caught in the crossfire. The dog2 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new material and details to the Stay Safe section is a great suggestion. Filling the reader's first view of the article with a big warning box — not so much. Ground Zero (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin pronunciation[edit]

I added the Mandarin pronunciation of Hong Kong and it was reverted on the grounds that Mandarin is not widely spoken in Hong Kong. Be that as it may, Mandarin is the official language of China, and all government offices in Hong Kong will be able to serve you in Mandarin, so it certainly has some official status. So I think having the Mandarin pronunciation is certainly not useless. The dog2 (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to putting in the article that you could be easily served in govt departments in Mandarin. My objection was putting the transliteration of HK in the first sentence of the article since this implies it is in some way official, or widely used. The Basic Law only stipulates "Chinese", and not the specific Chinese language which is to be considered official. As was stated by another editor, Mandarin is enshrined in law as the official language in the PRC, but these laws do not apply to the SARs. A tourist, walking the streets of Hong Kong, would be unlikely to hear Mandarin spoken by locals, which is not the case for Cantonese, and in most of the areas tourists are likely to go, not for English either. I don't think the Pinyin is useful to tourists who would be using the English-language page, and it gives a misleading impression, by my reckoning. Kdm852 (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's misleading. We cover all the stuff you mention under "Talk". And to your point on official status, Mandarin is compulsory in all Hong Kong government schools, and both Carrie Lam and C.Y. Leung gave their inauguration speeches in Mandarin, so there's certainly some degree of official recognition in Hong Kong. Besides, if you want to buy train tickets from the mainland to Hong Kong, you will need to know the Mandarin pronunciation at the mainland Chinese ticket office. The dog2 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but this is not Wikipedia, it's a resource for tourists and it's still the case that Hong Kong is not a Mandarin speaking place. The bit about the train tickets is true, but it's also true of cities in Russia, Mongolia, and Central Asian countries, but the Mandarin pronunciation isn't given on those articles. Not is the Cantonese name given for cities accessible by train from HK, even though travelers may benefit from having that information if traveling from HK. Also, if we are to give the transliterations for all Chinese languages which are used in HK, then we would also need to give the name in Hakka and Hokkien as well. This is especially true since other Chinese languages are the first language of 4.5% of the population, as opposed to less than 1% for Mandarin (according to the 2016 census). I think my point still stands that it should be mentioned in the Talk section (and perhaps mentioned in the part about getting in by train from the Mainland) that Mandarin is widely spoken, but it should not be in the first sentence since it is not relevant for tourists (who are unlikely to be watching the CE's inaugural address). Kdm852 (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We put the Tamil name in the Singapore article even though Tamil is only spoken by the ethnic Indian minority, so I don't agree with the notion that we should put the name in a particular language only if it is the first language of the majority. I have been to Hong Kong several times, so I am aware that most locals are not fluent in Mandarin, and that you won't hear locals speaking to each other in Mandarin in the streets. The difference between Mandarin and other Chinese dialects like Teochew and Hakka is that the latter two have no official recognition in Hong Kong at all, while Mandarin is used to varying degrees by the Hong Kong government for official purposes. That's why I think having the Mandarin pronunciation is appropriate, but not the Teochew or Hakka pronunciations. If you go to a Hong Kong government office, you can expect to be be served in either Cantonese, Mandarin or English, but good luck trying to get service in Teochew or Hakka. The dog2 (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: I didn't say we should omit Mandarin because it is not spoken by the majority, I said I do not think it should be included in the leading sentence since it gives an impression to travelers that Mandarin is widely used in Hong Kong, which it is not. As I have already said, all the information about it being possible to access govt services using Mandarin, buying train tickets, and the like can (and should) be placed where this information is relevant, and mention of the occasional official use (almost exclusively when issues directly involve the Beijing Government) should be put in the Talk section. And, if we're taking examples from other pages, the different regions/cities in India, Canada, Switzerland, etc don't give the rendering in all official languages, just the ones which would be useful to travellers, which I think is a better policy for Wikivoyage; leave listing all official renditions to the Wikipedia page. Kdm852 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with including this information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious?[edit]

Regarding this in the warning box:

"The protests have spread to the airport and led to flights being cancelled, meaning that transit passengers are also affected."

If flights are being cancelled, isn't it WV:obvious that transit passengers are also affected? Aren't transit passengers people who are taking flights (by definition)? Ground Zero (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I'm assuming transit would be the bus and train, rather than aircraft. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to write the protests are also affecting people who are just changing planes at HKG, and who don't intend to go to central Hong Kong where the main protests take place. Maybe this information doesn't need to be in the main Hong Kong article, though. Ypsilon (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was thinking too. It's not that common that protests affect people changing flights at the airport without needed to clear customs and immigration. But if people think it's unnecessary, we can probably move it to the airport article. The dog2 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhuh... people transiting by bus and train would not be affected by flight cancellations, which is what this sentence is about. People who are flying in would be affected by flight cancellations whether HK is their destination or they are transiting, and whether they clear customs and immigration or not. A cancelled flight is a cancelled flight.

When you're driving, which is the more effective warning? "Please bring your vehicle to a full and complete resting position in front of the white line painted on the road directly below this sign" or "STOP"? The former provides considerable detail, but the latter is more effective. That's why it is used everywhere. Another advantage to keeping things short and simple is to reduce the time we spend arguing over words. Ground Zero (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this is only about airplanes, the last part of the sentence should be removed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it's been removed already, but I would say that, while it might seem obvious, it may not be so to less seasoned travelers. Kdm852 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. I think that someone who has a flight into Hong Kong and a flight out of Hong Kong will understand that a cancelled flight at Hong Kong airport could affect them. Let's not make our writing turgid by stating the obvious. WV:tone encourages us to keep our text lively. I'm in favour of clear writing, but we should not assume that our readers cannot understand simply written English sentences. To do so sounds like we are talking down to them. Ground Zero (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fares[edit]

I'm in Hong Kong at the moment. I'm not going to log in for reasons. A couple of things - the fare for the 15 bus from the terminus to the peak has gone up to $10.30, and the protestors seem to have specifically targeted the Octopus Add Value machines. I have no idea why. It makes using an Octopus fractionally harder. Mong Kok station was recently disabled, and a couple of entrances are still cordoned off, although the station is now running. There's some kind of makeshift shrine outside Prince Edward station, I assume because it's right outside Mongkok police station, so you might want to walk past briskly. I'm an conspicuous and unpleasant-looking white English tourist - overweight, scowling, jowly - but not a single person has given me hassle, or even acknowledged me existence, in a week here. I'm almost disappointed. It's a far cry from e.g. Marrakech.-218.255.71.188 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, the Airport Express service is intermittently visiting intermediate stops between the airport and Hong Kong MTR station. The MTR's website claims that it's Airport-Hong Kong only, and it would be sensible to plan for that, but over the last week the service has included Kowloon and the little island, etc -218.255.71.188 14:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

HK milk tea.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History section.[edit]

I want to bring attention to the sentence "Moves by Beijing to only allow effectively handpicked candidates for the Chief Executive position led to large scale demonstrations in 2014 known as the Umbrella Protest.". I think this is misleading because it suggests that the chief executive was previously democratically elected, and the Chinese government moved to abolish elections and appoint the chief executive instead. This is factually incorrect. The chief executive has always been an appointee of Beijing since 1997, and likewise, the governor was appointed by the British government in London prior to the handover. The leader of Hong Kong has never been democratically elected, be it under Chinese rule or British rule. What really happened in 2014 was that Beijing agreed to allow elections for the chief executive, albeit only allowing candidates who have been screened and approved by Beijing to run. The protesters rejected this on the grounds that it was not a true Western-style democracy, and the ammendment to the Basic Law was subsequently voted down by the pro-democracy legislators. Therefore, the original system of having Beijing appoint the chief executive is the one still in place.

I don't want to get into any political debates here, but I think that sentence needs to be corrected so as not to mislead readers on the facts. The question is, how do we do it without getting too much into the weeds that is unnecessary for a travel guide? The dog2 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about brevity. In 2014, the Umbrella Protest was held to demand free elections for Hong Kong's chief executive. The Chinese government counterproposed elections only from a list of candidates they would pick, an idea the demonstrators rejected, with the result that the executive is still appointed by the authorities in Beijing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that looks good. I will make some further tweaks, but it looks brief enough to suit our purposes. The dog2 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning that Mandarin-speakers may be attacked[edit]

User:The dog2, please stop suggesting in the warning message that people will be attacked for speaking Mandarin. Provide sources that this is a genuine hazard. Otherwise, stop spreading patently ridiculous misinformation such as this. Citobun (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of videos of Mandarin speakers getting attacked, so I don't know how you can be so blind to things that are happening. I know you support the protesters and want to portray them in a positive light and China as the villain, but we can't take sides here and have a duty to be fair and cover all potential dangers accurately. But since you insist, here are some articles: [1][2]. The dog2 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I'd just like to remind you both that each point and counterpoint in this debate should not be accompanied by a revert. You've had two each, which is already too many. Neither of you are allowed another one while this discussion is ongoing.

So let's please confine the debate to this talk page, and leave editing that part of the article until the discussion is over. I also trust that you will both ensure civility is maintained as well.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: Thanks for casting aspersions on me with no basis whatsoever. I have never got into politics on Wikivoyage before. Meanwhile, I can see from your talk page that you have a history of making politically contentious edits. I am just a Hong Kong resident who knows that the idea anyone will get attacked simply for speaking Mandarin is utter BS; the deluded fantasies of the mainland Chinese propaganda machine that seeks to turn Chinese people against Hong Kongers. Yet sadly this stuff is lapped up, without critical thought, by many overseas Chinese. The guy in the article you posted wasn't attacked for speaking Mandarin. He was screaming things like "我們都是中國人" at a group of pro-democratic protesters. The second story provides no context and doesn't indicate this person was targeted simply for speaking Mandarin. Hell, there are Mandarin-speakers at many pro-democratic protests. My ferry yesterday was full of Mandarin speakers. This will not get you attacked. Stop posting such absurd disinformation. Citobun (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the information then that there were Mandarin speakers at pro-democracy protests. And you are the one who has been targeting me with politically charged language from the onset. Frankly speaking, I don't give a s*** about whether Hong Kong becomes independent or not, but I care about the accuracy of the information we provide here. But as a compromise, how about we adjust it to asking people to avoid speaking Mandarin at protests.

And before you accuse me of being a Chinese government hack, please look at my edit history carefully, and you will see that I've also mentioned that pro-China counter-protesters have committed violent acts. And I insisted on mentioning the fact that protesters were shot by police on the grounds that it was a potential safety risk to travellers. How is that being a Chinese government hack? And the point about Hongkongers bearing hatred for mainland Chinese was told to me by someone who hates the Chinese government. The dog2 (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cool it with the inflammatory language, and remember we're all working together here, with the same goal of creating an accurate, useful travel guide. I'm going to refrain from calling out individual users' biases here.

I haven't been to Hong Kong in months, so I have no on-the-ground insight to contribute, but I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to a firsthand report from someone who's living in the city. The advice to avoid speaking Mandarin is already mentioned in 2–3 other places later in the article. I'm not sure it needs to be in the warning box too, especially since this is the English Wikivoyage and realistically, mainland Chinese are not going to come to us for advice on traveling to Hong Kong—they're just not a meaningful part of our audience for this particular article.

I'm inclined to think the advice to avoid expressing political opinions ought to stay. @Citobun: what do you think about that? —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: I haven't "targeted [you] with politically charged language" nor accused you of being a Chinese government hack. I am merely saying that this narrative – that people are being attacked merely for speaking Mandarin – is disinformation being pushed by the Chinese propaganda machine. I'm not suggesting you are part of that machine.

Here is a video that contains an interview with a Mandarin-speaking protester in Hong Kong, filmed at a protest. Here is an article about mainlanders who have travelled to Hong Kong to join the protests.

@Mx. Granger: Yes, I think the advice about avoiding expressing political opinions is fine to stay. Citobun (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess just mentioning the part about not expressing political opinions is fine then. And at the end of the day, neither the Chinese not Western media is entirely trustworthy, and they most certainly have their own biases and agendas, so sometimes, it can be hard to separate the truths from the half truths. The dog2 (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

ChinaRailwayHighspeed-notext.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facemasks[edit]

I would say that one of user:廣九直通車's edits last night, specifically this one, introduces excess detail without changing the advice we're offering: don't wear facemasks if you don't want to get in trouble. The other stuff about court rulings and reactions from various parties is more suited to Wikipedia than Wikivoyage. The facts about what the law says and what effect flouting the law may have on travellers seem to remain the same. Therefore, I propose to reinstate the previous wording, or something close to it that is similarly punchy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!:

DoneThank you for your advice! I am still new (relatively) and stilllearning to get a grasp on facts related to Wikivoyage.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 廣九直通車, much appreciated. There's plenty of time to learn.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protests[edit]

Should we still leave the information here or not. Things seem calmer now because of the coronavirus lockdown, but anti-China sentiment is still high, and violent protests could easily erupt again as soon as the pandemic passes. The dog2 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Paris, I moved the gilets jaunes infobox to the talk page, given the likelihood they'll be out again later in the year. The same could be done here.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning box[edit]

WARNING: Since mid-2019, there have been violent confrontations between protesters, counter-protesters and police. Avoid wearing black or white T-shirts (the colours of protesters and counter-protesters), and follow the news so you can avoid affected areas. The local government has established a portal to keep travellers up to date. The protests have disrupted flights to the airport, and are disrupting road traffic and the MTR public transit. Violent clashes take place in all parts of the territory, though the current situation is more calm. Avoid expressing political views in public. See #2019 protests.

Leaving this here as suggested. The dog2 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'add listing' shorthands[edit]

I've noticed that if one tries to use the 'add listing' for attractions and the like in pages related to Hong Kong, the telephone area code is '+86' and the currency is 'CNY', which are the codes for China, but not for Hong Kong. Is there a way to change these to the ones relevant to HK ('+852' and 'HKD' or 'HK$')? Kdm852 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried adding a listing to Hong Kong/Kowloon and got the area code "+852" and currency "HKD" and "HK$". Which article are you having problems on? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Granger, I've been through all the HK subpages and it seems some are set to China and some are correctly set to the HK defaults. Here are the ones that I can see so far that are incorrectly set:

—The preceding comment was added by Kdm852 (talk • contribs)

I think I've found the problem. At Wikidata, the areas you mentioned aren't listed as "located in the administrative territorial entity" of Hong Kong. I've just changed that for Lantau. I can change it for the others too, but I'm not sure this solution will work long-term, because the Wikidata items may get changed back. Possibly the code for the listing editor could be changed to deal with this, but I'm not sure if any active editors how to do that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. But it would be better if we could edit the listing editor, because the changes I made to the Wikidata items may not stick. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would be needed only where we put something in the "wrong" administrative entity. Is that the case for these? For me it seems just that nobody had added the property, and in that case it should be unlikely to be changed (just vandalism and mistakes, which should be caught by normal patrolling over there). It might be a problem, though, in desolate border areas where the phone network is from another country (I remember reading about one such place here at Wikivoyage). --LPfi (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes make some of the Wikidata items redundant (for instance, listing both "Hong Kong" and "Islands District"). I don't know whether this kind of redundancy is encouraged/accepted on Wikidata. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For P131 (the relevant property) the value should be the closest one in the hierarchy. Islands District (Q752523) has P131=Hong Kong (Q8646). Shouldn't that be enough? --LPfi (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would think so. That's why I think the best solution may be to edit the listing editor, so that that hierarchy would be enough to display the right country code and currency. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it now? Most destinations are probably "located in the administrative territorial entity" of a municipality or province, few directly in a country. I'd think unless that is handled we would have had a lot more problems like this. E.g. Nagu is located in a municipality, which is located in a region, ... and I get the right country code. --LPfi (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm guessing that part of what caused the problem for Hong Kong is that the Wikidata items in question are labeled as in the country of "People's Republic of China". But that's just an educated guess. All I really know is that before I edited the Wikidata entries, the listing editor was displaying +86 and CNY for these articles, and after I edited the Wikidata entries, it started displaying +852 and HKD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is no longer autonomous[edit]

I apologize if this is considered a little spammy (trying not to), but this just in from US State Seceatary Pompeo: "Today, I reported to Congress that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China, given facts on the ground. The United States stands with the people of Hong Kong." "No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China," he said. "It is now clear that China is modeling Hong Kong after itself." This likely means that Hong Kong is literally a state of China, not just a special territory anymore, after a year of tensions there. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:58F:E5D9:812B:2E7C 15:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so says Mike Pompeo... so what...? Ibaman (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we don't need to repeat the claims of the US government. To my knowledge, Hong Kong remains autonomous in most traveler-relevant ways (separate currency, uncensored internet, etc.), so I think it still makes sense to cover it separately from mainland China. It's possible that some of the recent developments merit updates to parts of this article, though. Other users may know more than I do. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see what actually happens. Macau already has a national security law like the one that China is now proposing for Hong Kong, and it still retains most of the Western-style freedoms that Hong Kong has, so it's premature to say that Hong Kong is going to be just another mainland Chinese city. And as we all know, the US is in a midst of a major geopolitical tussle with China, so whatever you hear from the US government about China (and vice versa) should be properly scrutinised and taken with a pinch of salt. The dog2 (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the quote, it's his opinion about the political situation in China/Hong Kong rather than an official statement by the U.S. government. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was an official US government statement, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. The geopolitical tussle with China is something that has broad bipartisan support across the American political spectrum, so I'd be skeptical even if the Democrats were the ones in power. You can't assume something is true just because MSNBC and Fox News both agree on it. Regardless of who it comes from, it's important to do proper fact checking. The dog2 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait until the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong end in a bloodbath before changing anything, but there's no good reason for optimism now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If and when that happens, then yes, changes should be made. But at this point, nobody really knows what is really going to happen, so I suggest we hold our horse for now. The dog2 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a busy, diverse day in news (protests in Minneapolis, a first-of-the-kind space launch scrubbed, COVID-19 deaths in US surpass 100K etc.), so if anything, this is quite important. Hope everything goes well overnight... --2603:9000:A511:9E76:58F:E5D9:812B:2E7C 01:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese "Parliament" (so to speak) passed the national security law today banning "subversion, separatism, and acts of foreign interference". It looks like curtains for HK democracy and rule of law, though it will take a few weeks before anything changes.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see what happens on the ground first. As I mentioned, Macau already has such a law (it got passed there in 2009), and they still have most of their civil liberties, so as of now it's too early to say what will happen on the ground in Hong Kong. Whatever we can come up with now is just speculation, and until the law is actually implemented, we will not know how it affects travellers. The dog2 (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it now, Mr. President... [3] --2603:9000:A511:9E76:58F:E5D9:812B:2E7C 19:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send these comments to Wikipedia (and get them sourced please). Wikivoyage is tourist-oriented, and the law should be mentioned only if it will affect tourists (such as relevant protests, or its application).廣九直通車 (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now Hong Kong really is no longer autonomous, so I think passages like this unfortunately need to be removed or suitably edited: "In Hong Kong where information is freely circulated..." Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2020 (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:

MTR logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh-oh Canada[edit]

A Singapore English newspaper, usually reliable: Canada warns citizens new Hong Kong law poses risk of 'arbitrary detention'. Pashley (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the new law applies to everyone, not just to Chinese or SAR citizens, from what I've read in the press: "If you've ever said anything that might offend the PRC, stay out of Hong Kong", warned Donald Clarke, professor of law at George Washington University, in today's Guardian. In the same article, HK University law professor Eric Cheung stated "The law does not define national security, meaning that the definition of national security will be defined by the PRC's national security law." A sad day for democracy. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Straits Times is from Singapore, not HK. Kdm852 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, corrected above. Thanks. Pashley (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 'national secuity' law be in the lede box (Or Under Get in perhaps)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. But we could mention in "Get in" that critics of the Chinese government may be denied entry to Hong Kong (which was happening before this law passed, actually). —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The law is pretty harsh, so it should be mentioned in "Stay Safe", but I don't think it will affect the average tourist. Just like in the mainland, if you avoid political activity and are not deliberately provocative, I think you should be fine. In any case, here at WV, we recommend people avoid protests when they are travelling in any foreign country, so the same advice applies here as always. The dog2 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. And ultimately, that's what laws like this are for; putting fear of the state into people. The Chinese government don't want to incarcerate millions of Hong Kongers, and they likely won't have to, because the threat of doing so is enough to make most people too frightened to raise their heads or their voices. I can't blame them really.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to be fair, most Western countries have similar laws too. If you are an American and decide to go to Beijing to petition Xi Jinping to support the cause of Hawaiian independence, I can bet you that you'll be arrested for and thrown in jail for a very long time for treason should you return to the US. Likewise, if you are a Brit and go to Moscow to petition Vladimir Putin to hep the cause of Scottish independence, the same would happen to you. WV is not the place to debate on whether these laws are morally justified, but that is the reality. The dog2 (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence was organised with the full collusion of the UK government, which is to its core ideologically opposed to Scottish independence? But sure, the UK and the US governments are totally the same as the Chinese "Communist" Party's totalitarian dictatorship.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm aware that there's a difference, in that you can advocate for Scottish independence in the UK because you have freedom of speech. But if you go to Russia and ask Putin to intervene on behalf of the Scottish independence movement, I am pretty sure that will be considered treason, and will get you arrested and sentenced to jail for a very long time. The dog2 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dog2, this is absurd nonsense. No, you won't get arrested for advocating for Hawaiian independence while outside the U.S. Stop this offensive crap, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: You misunderstood what I'm saying. What you said is true, that you are allowed to advocate for Hawaiian independence while outside the U.S. But if you go to Beijing, meet with Xi Jinping, and publicly ask him to intervene on behalf of the Hawaiian independence movement, I'm pretty sure the U.S. government will regard that as treason. The dog2 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please focus on writing a travel guide and not on these irrelevant political hypotheticals. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog, really, don't post mock-knowledgeably about stuff you know nothing about. What you don't understand about the definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution could fill a book. It's not just that your remarks are irrelevant, they're also infuriating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were Russian observers at the Scottish Independence Referendum count, and they were possibly the only ones that commented negatively, possibly as a result of the UK government making unfavourable comparisons with the Crimea Referendum held the same year. I don't think that it would count as treason (in UK law) to campaign for Scottish Independence anywhere, how Russian law treats it depends on whether Putin views it as advancing his interests. AlasdairW (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Ikan here. Pashley (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inline Wikipedia and Wikisource links[edit]

Do we feel those are so important in this article that they should remain on the page as exceptions to Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia? I doubt that people reading this article need exhaustive details of Chinese laws, which are enforced on whatever basis the government damn pleases, anyway. Your opinions, folks? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the Wikipedia link in the warningbox and the two Wikisource links in the "Legal matters" section. I don't think the links are necessary. Travellers who need to know the details of these laws (activists, mainly) should get specialized advice. For ordinary tourists, our summary is probably enough. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They should get specialized advice but remember that the details don't matter when dealing with a system that doesn't give defendants real rights. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly issues with the Chinese justice system given the >99% conviction rate. That said, I've been to China several times, and police will certainly not follow you around everywhere trying to eavesdrop on your every conversation (except maybe if you go to Tibet or Xinjiang, though I don't know since I've never been). If you're not some high profile public figure, and you stay away from political activity, you will probably not be a target. In fact, Chinese colleagues have told me that as long as you don't gain a following, you can say whatever you want in private conversations with your friends. Where they start enforcing the laws against free speech is if your anti-government views start gaining you a following, and the Chinese government starts getting afraid that you will undermine their control over the population. The dog2 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. You'd have no reason to remember this if you ever knew it, but I've been to China twice. But that's not my point. My point is, is there any reason to maintain the inline links referred to above, or should we remove them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say remove them. People who travel to China for political activism are in the vast minority, and those who want to do so should probably consult a legal professional who is familiar with Chinese law instead of relying on Wikivoyage. The dog2 (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like this is going to be controversial. I'll remove the links. If someone has a good argument for why they're of great importance, we could always reinstate them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Return of colonialism[edit]

Are these statement true?

"many locals in Hong Kong, particularly the younger generation, have a positive view of colonisalism, with those who support the independence movement often touting the return of British colonial rule as an alternative to full independence. Many youths are proud of Hong Kong's British colonial heritage, and also identify as more British than Chinese, with many of them referring to British prime ministers as "our prime minister"."

Unfortunately, User:The dog2 has a track record of focusing on politics and history, and writing stuff that is reflective of personal recollection or opinion that cannot be supported by evidence. I'd like this to be confirmed by other Wikivoyagers or by sources here on the talk page. It sounds like an overstatement or misrepresentation to me, but I'd be happy to be corrected. Ground Zero (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this tweet by Joshua Wong, where he refers to Winston Churchill as "our former prime minister". Very few people in other former colonies, be it Singapore, Malaysia, India or even predominantly white former colonies like Australia and Canada will do that. They always refer to Winston Churchill as "former British prime minister". For the record, you often see the protesters waving British and American flags, as well as the colonial flag of Hong Kong, and you will hear them singing the British and American national anthem. Have a look at the Alliance of Resuming British Sovereignty over Hong Kong and Independence page on Wikipedia, so I can assure you that the movement exists. And have a look at this this article from a Canadian newspaper. It is definitely a common sentiment among the Hong Kong youths (and the Taiwanese youths) that Hong Kong was a paradise of freedom and democracy under British colonial rule, and that China has moved to curb those freedoms and oppress the Hong Kong locals since they took over.

What is perhaps ironic is that opinion among the older generation who actually experienced colonial rule tends to be quite split, while colonialism tends to be viewed more favourably by the younger generation who grew up after 1997 (like Joshua Wong and Nathan Law). The dog2 (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is almost certainly true that many HK people feel this way, but I'm inclined to think this does not affect travellers much so discussion of it does not belong in a travel guide. Pashley (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should be cautious making generalizations about Hong Kongers overall based on a tweet from Joshua Wong.

I think it's true that many people in Hong Kong are proud of the city's colonial heritage. (The article The dog2 linked confirms: "Indeed, many people in Hong Kong, including those born before the Second World War, tend to look back to the colonial era with varying degrees of fondness.") That piece of information might be worth mentioning in "Understand". I'd remove the rest. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there are a sizable number of people here who are nostalgic for the 'good old days' under the British, but I don't think it could be considered an issue that is likely to be relevant to most travellers. There are probably as many views on how HK should be governed and by whom as there are Hongkongers, but I don't think it's irrelevant that many HK independence supporters have adopted the old colonial flag as a symbol. I might say it's worthwhile adding that visitors might want to avoid discussion of such topics for the time being until it's clearer how the new National Security Law is going to be used by the government as discussion of such topics could conceivable get one into trouble. Kdm852 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really find people who regard colonialism as a good thing in former colonies besides Hong Kong and (to a lesser extent) Taiwan. You'll never hear a Korean longing for Japanese colonialism, a Macanese/East Timorese/Brazilian longing for Portugese colonialism, an Indian/Australian/Canadian/Jamaican/Nigerian/Malaysian/Singaporean longing for British colonialism and so on. In most former colonies, colonialism is seen as a bad thing. So at the very least, I think people should know that the views on colonialism are very different in Hong Kong compared to other former colonies, so you going to people and talking about how bad the British were as colonial masters is probably not going to go down very well. We have a local from Hong Kong who is a regular editor, so 廣九直通車, what do you think? The dog2 (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that during the Mobutu era in Zaire, there was nostalgia for the Belgian colonial days (which is pretty incredible when you consider how brutally the Congolese were treated under Belgian rule—it goes to show what a terrible leader Mobutu was). I also vaguely recall that there was nostalgia for French rule in Louisiana during the period after it became part of the US. Anyway, I think Kdm852 (who is also a local) strikes the right note here. But let's see what 廣九直通車 says too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, 廣九直通車 has not responded, but he thanked me for the edit, so I presume he tacitly agrees that what I wrote is accurate. But anyway, to Kdm852's point, we don't know how the authorities will be enforcing the new National Security Law, so it may be worth listing symbols used by the independence supporters for visitors to avoid. These would include Pepe the Frog, the old colonial flag, the British and American flags and national anthems, and Trump caps. That said, I can't imagine police arresting a British or American tourist for merely displaying their national flag on their backpack; that will be more heavy handed that what any country has ever done in history, and it would probably end up being a huge public relations disaster. The dog2 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding before the widely-anticipated comment by 廣九直通車 because I don't see this as an issue of accuracy, and therefore not one related to local knowledge, but rather an issue as to whether this paragraph is suited to a travel guide. In the case of Hong Kong we should of course recommend that the unsuspecting tourist not purchase/use political symbols as The dog2 has mentioned.

Opinions regarding colonialism are irrelevant, IMHO, since there no longer exists a British Empire. Apart from our historical travel articles, the goal of this travel guide is to educate visitors on matters that will affect them currently — and colonialism isn't one of them. Therefore I agree with those that argue this paragraph is not travel relevant and should not be included within the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've removed the paragraph per the consensus in this discussion. Other parts of the article already give advice to avoid expressing political views in public and avoid expressing support for Hong Kong independence. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning box[edit]

@廣九直通車, Kdm852, Pashley, The dog2: Is this warning still valid? Or should it be removed? "Since mid-2019, there have been confrontations between protesters, counter-protesters and police and these have sometimes become violent. The protests have disrupted flights to the airport, and are disrupting road traffic and the MTR public transit. See #2019-2020 protests below for details." Ground Zero (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not currently in Hong Kong, but based on the news and accounts from people in Hong Kong, it seems that the protests now attract a lot fewer people, and the political situation seems to have stabilised for now. Things might start heating up again due to arrest of prominent leaders in the independence movement though. The dog2 (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are still outbreaks here and there, especially in shopping centres where people frequently gather and the police turn up in response. Since what tourists there are are quite likely to find themselves in shopping centres, it makes sense to me to keep it for now. I also suspect that this might flare back up once the COVID-19 restrictions are eased. Maytbe it can be amended to remove the last part about the disruptions to transport since this hasn't happened in a while. We might add instead something like "Police, including riot police, often respond to rumours online about protests with a heavy presence in MTR stations and will stop and search people they suspect of participating, especially young people. It is recommended that you carry your passport on you at all times when in Hong Kong which is a legal requirement and will be requested if you are stopped by the police." Kdm852 (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdm852, Ground Zero:Plus the statement that "there may be larger protests during certain days, such as the 21st and the 31st day of each month" (in memory of certain events during the protest). And mass arrests are less used now-the police just issue 599G (Group Gathering Prohibition) tickets to protesters, if the protest itself is neither violent or seditious廣九直通車 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Seems about right to me. Kdm852 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added material[edit]

@廣九直通車, Kdm852, Citobun: Since you have local knowledge, could you please verify whether this material is accurate and important for travellers to know? Thanks in advance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what terms it is referring to. There are indeed quite a few nasty terms which some people use to refer to Mainlanders which are discriminatory. I wouldn't at all say that they are considered widely acceptable, however. I'm also not sure how this would be relevant to travelers visiting HK. Kdm852 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kdm852 has a good point. The article about Hong Kong is now longer than the article about China. Maybe it's time to stop adding stuff that isn't really about travel. Ground Zero (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are true, but only in particular environments (such as the LIHKG discussion board which upholds Sinophobia and anti-communism, consider it something like 4/8Chan).廣九直通車 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know one term that is widely used to describe mainland Chinese is "locusts". There's another term I don't want to mention here because it was a racist term coined by the Japanese in the late 19th century to refer to Chinese people, it would be the equivalent of using the n-word (or the k-word if you are South African) to refer to a black person, except that it refers to Chinese people. But if you see the graffiti sprayed by Hong Kong independence activists, you'll see the term. What I think is important to say is that while Westerners may consider such terms racist, Hongkongers merely see these as a way of asserting their identity as non-Chinese and do not necessarily view them as racist. The dog2 (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, everyone. Of course offensive terms exist in every country, but it sounds like these are not so widely accepted in Hong Kong as to be worth mentioning in this travel guide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government gazette[edit]

In the COVID-19 box we say that

The government may by notification on government gazette, notify certain groups of people to do compulsory COVID-19 testing after superspreader events, and people failing to do may result in fine and/or imprisonment.

So are we suggesting that travellers to Hong Kong should read this gazette on a regular basis? If so, I would certainly want to have some advice on how to find the relevant notices without wading through all of the text, or that one indeed has to do that. The procedure would probably include keeping notes on names of places where one has spent time. Is it enough to note places (including streets) where one has been for at least two hours? Is this a routine to follow each morning? Are they published some specific time of day? Is there always a respite of three days? Is it easy to get the mandatory test?

–LPfi (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are quoting the formal legal notification. People will find out by less formal methods (like loud hailer announcements) that they have to get tested. See this newspaper report of mass testing of a few city blocks. AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locals might be reached that way, but would you notice them from your hotel room, unless they know to knock at your door? –LPfi (talk) 22:33, 26 January 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:

MTR logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the logo is too simple to be copyrighted, identical to an ancient letter, and not governed by HK law. I wouldn't worry. –LPfi (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the notification was repeated. There was a notice already 7 June 2020, when the DR was opened. –LPfi (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opium Wars[edit]

I wonder if this is worth a statement in the "Respect" section. I know the mainland Chinese perspective is that the British fought the Opium Wars to force the Chinese to accept opium in exchange of tea and other Chinese goods, because China tried to ban opium as a result of its addictive properties. And before exporting opium to China, the British had a massive trade deficit, but after many Chinese got addicted to opium, the opium trade became massively profitable for the British. However, my understanding is that Hongkongers on the other hand believe that the Opium Wars were a war of self defence by the British triggered by unwarranted Chinese aggression, and that the British also fought the Opium Wars to save China from a drug addiction crisis. Should we write anything mentioning this difference in perspectives? The version I was taught in Singapore is the mainland Chinese version, but I'm not sure if the version of events Hongkongers believe it is the mainstream Western version of events. The dog2 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Opium Wars likely to come up in everyday conversation? Maybe when you're checking into a hotel, or buying your bubble tea? If so, then yes. If we're looking at something that the overwhelming majority of the readers of this travel guide will never have to deal with, maybe our time would be better spent adding content that travellers can actually use. I can only say that no-one discussed the Opium Wars with me during my five days there. And none of the Hong Kongers I know in Toronto and Vancouver, and I seem to know a lot, have ever brought up the Opium Wars with me. Ground Zero (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably come across them in a history museum. After all, they're the very reason why Hong Kong was colonised by the British. Of course, now that Hong Kong has been returned to China, the museums there will present the Chinese perspective, but of course, what the people of Hong Kong believe is a separate issue from the official state-sanctioned version of history. The dog2 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is the 8th-longest article in Wikivoyage. It is longer than China, Japan and USA articles. It really should be cut down to remove much of the fine detail and obscure stuff that risks boring readers or making them feel that they have to go elsewhere to get a useful travel guide. Maybe you'd like to create a separate article "talking about issues in Chinese history" to avoid making this article even bigger and more unwieldy than it is now. Ground Zero (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedog2: the article still has a lot of information (safety warnings, lists of events) about the 2019 street protests. Is that information still up to date? Updating that info would be very useful to travellers. Advising them on how to discuss a 19th century war is less useful. This is Wikivoyage, not Wikihistory. Let's focus on being a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in the U.S. so I can't provide on-the-ground information. Perhaps someone on the ground like 廣九直通車 can provide more information. But based on the news, it seems like the protests now flare up sporadically (like you will see university students unfolding banners in support of HK independence at their graduation ceremonies), but the situation is now calmer than in 2019. The dog2 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good friend of mine is on-the-ground; my impression from his descriptions is that there's little protesting, but that it's the result of a chilling effect/culture of fear rather than stability per se. Unsure quite how that would look to tourists or indeed expats -- he's a native. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently here in HK, and it's very unlikely that tourists are going to run into any protests at the moment, so it's probably safe to remove that banner, but keep a copy in the Talk page so it can be replaced if the situation changes. The closest thing at the moment are gatherings outside courthouses in support of the pro-democracy figures who are currently on trial, but tourists are unlikely to encounter this deliberately. The COVID situation is by far and away the most significant factor that is likely to impact tourists at the moment since a lot of businesses are closed and there are still a lot, and fairly frequently changing, restrictions on things like public gathering and limits on restaurant hours. Kdm852 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Hong Kongers wrong about the reasons for the Opium Wars? Anyway, I think their (mis)conceptions about them are more of a curiosity than something most visitors are likely to encounter. I spent 10 days in Hong Kong in 1987 with nary a mention of those wars from anyone I spoke with. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move on from this Opium War stuff – not relevant to a travel guide. I support updating the protest information as Kdm852 suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong: Warning Box[edit]

Swept in from the pub

As a local in Hong Kong, I think the protests have largely died down due to the National Security Law for almost a year. As far as I know the last time when there are large-scale protests is 1 July 2020, probably hours after the NSL comes into effect. So should we remove contents about the demonstration from the article?

	WARNING: There have been major changes in Hong Kong's legal and political environment with the enactment of the National Security Law. As the law could be interpreted broadly, anyone - foreigners included - who has criticized the Hong Kong or Chinese governments is at risk of arrest and possible transfer to mainland China for prosecution under mainland law. See #National Security Law below for details.
	Government travel advisories Australia Canada Germany New Zealand United Kingdom United States
	(Information last updated 31 May 2021)

Opinions will be appreciated.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's been following this thing since 2019, I'd say put it in invisible text. Just because this issue may (trés unlikely) arise again, but it's tedious to do it all again. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to defer to your judgement about the protest information, 廣九直通車. I don't think there's any need to leave it in "invisible text" (I assume this means HTML comments) – if the protests start up again, we can always look in the page history to find the old information if needed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mx. Granger it simply means just putting it like this:  . SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to go along with 廣九直通車's local knowledge. I wonder, should the protests section in 'Stay safe' therefore be reduced in length? And should the focus be changed from the threat of violent clashes to the possibility of arrest if you break the NSL? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say plunge forward. We don't want obsolete warnings on our pages. And I wouldn't keep hidden text, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also ask for opinions from other Hong Kong editors like OhanaUnited and Kdm852. The dog2 (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I think the warning box for the protests is rather unnecessary at this point since, as has been mentioned above, the protests have largely disappeared in recent months. As has also been mentioned, if it flares up again, it should be fairly easy to restore it from the article's history. Kdm852 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support for hiding the information about the protests. As the Hong Kong government is really shitty in dealing the pandemic (for example, by allowing 5 consecutive waves of local cases after restrictions were released), I'm quite afraid that discontent among locals may erupt in critical incidents.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, which country actually did not do shit with dealing with the pandemic. (there's some like New Cal, Taiwan and some others). But if you want, then sure, go ahead and hide it. I commonly hide texts when it's covid related, so you may as well do it here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Granger and am happy to take the local-knowledge option. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that although the protests have died down, the threat imposed by "National Security Law" is ever present (and more so with impunity). Until the political environment changes, I would recommend keeping the box there. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the proposal here was to remove the information about the protests from the warning box, which was done in this diff, but now I see the information about the National Security Law has also been removed.[4] —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done And perhaps this section is ready for being swept to the corresponding talk page.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

warning box..[edit]

@廣九直通車, LPfi: Per Special:Diff/4298061, is the warning box needed? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the warning box can be removed, but keep Hong_Kong#National_Security_Law under "stay safe". Pashley (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can keep a caution box on top? While as a local (perhaps expatriates as well, I think a previous survey by the Japanese consulate in HK showed a number of Japanese expatriates think the NSL don't affect them), as long as you know the boundary you're fine (eg. don't chant slogans overtly supporting the protests or subverting Chinese rule), foreign travellers may not know the bottom line of the NSD as well as the locals, even the NSL is widely reported worldwide. Plus we also need to consider travel advisories by other countries. Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the NSL is comparable to similar legislation in China. If you act like what you would have been in China, you're fine in Hong Kong. Perhaps the warningbox/cautionbox can be reviewed after a few years of implementation — after all, travel advisories usually won't mention Singapore has a law authorizing the indefinite detention of anyone believed to be a security threat, as the law is almost exclusively used to jail terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, spies, etc. nowadays (yup, despite once used to purge out LKY's opposition at a point); the law seldom interfere with normal citizens and travellers. It really depends on the enforcement.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with 廣九直通車's suggestion, although I would like the opinion of @The dog2:. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with downgrading it to a caution box. If you're an average tourist not intending to get involved in local politics, I highly doubt you will be arrested. The Chinese government is not as stupid as many people think, and they generally do not go out of their way to arrest random tourists who are of no realistic threat to their authority. The dog2 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the reader might not be an average tourist without interest in politics. When there is a law that allows severe measures, it may be used to state an example at any arbitrary time. And if you are in the wrong place ... I think the current threat meets the caution box guideline ("public displays of affection [or political view] could result in jail time"). I think the question is whether it should be up front or in Stay safe. As long as there is no political unrest, I suppose the risk is minor and Stay safe suffices, but as people might have forgot about it, it should be up front if tensions surface again. –LPfi (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you guys to decide, but a segment covering it in "Stay Safe" will suffice for me. I've been to mainland China multiple times, and the police have never given me any problems (though to be fair, I don't go to protests, and even if you're visiting a Western country, you should still probably stay away from protests if you are just a tourist). For the most part, I don't think an average visitor to Hong Kong will get into trouble under the NSL if you're not being deliberately provocative (eg. running down the street shouting pro-Hong Kong independence slogans). The dog2 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussing it in "Stay safe" is enough. I think this type of thing is true in a number of countries, and we don't have it at the top of the article in most of them. It made sense to put it at the top of the Hong Kong article at first, because readers might have an impression of Hong Kong as a place where freedom of expression is protected, but eventually it should be relegated to "Stay safe" like other places where you can be arrested for criticizing the government. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to add a warning about June 4, 2022 possibly being the next crisis? I'd say yes.

That is the anniversary of the w:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre and Hong Kong has had vigils to commemorate it almost every year since. In 2020 & 2021 the government banned them, using COVID as the excuse, see Hong Kong's Tiananmen Square Vigil Is Banned As Authorities Arrest Organizers. Pashley (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I observed is that after the NSL is enacted, locals are losing momentum towards politics. While hatred towards the government continues (or superheats, if described accurately), I think overt acts against the government is not so likely now — they're more likely to be rounded up by the NSD if they attempt, like the pan-democratic LC members. Plus I don't think 4 June is more risky than other days like 21st July (Yuen Long station attack) or 31st August (alleged deaths by police brutality), perhaps even 9th June (first large-scale protest) or 12th June (first violent clash between protesters and the police). In the troubled 2019 we see protesters came out in these specific days, I don't see much of them in June Fourth. So it seems that June Fourth isn't that risky to tourists??廣九直通車 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@廣九直通車: By the way, what do you think is the risk of terrorist attacks being committed by independence activists, given the strong anti-government sentiments that persist? If there is a substantial risk of terrorist attacks committed by the independence movement, we should most certainly cover that in Stay Safe since it would be a safety risk to visitors. After all, if a bomb goes off, if you're in the wrong place, it doesn't matter whether you're a mainland Chinese or a Westerner. The dog2 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong since I haven't been in HK recently & do not speak Cantonese, but I would not worry about that. Inconvenience if demonstrations block roads or metro would have been a concern a while ago, but maybe not with the NSL in force. Getting caught in violence like the 21st July incident mentioned above would be a bit of a worry, but not a huge one. Pashley (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things have certainly changed a lot though. Granted that I haven't been to HK in a long time, but the independence movement effectively did not exist before 2014, and only came into being as a result of the Umbrella Protests. So back then, the risk was close to zero. There has already been a case of a bomb being planted by a pro-independence medical workers in a hospital toilet, though thankfully, nobody was hurt because nobody was in the toilet when the bomb exploded (and it was a low power bomb). The dog2 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: While obviously resentment to the Hong Kong government is high, as a local I don't feel much threatened by terrorism in Hong Kong currently (as opposed to what travellers may feel in real battlefields). I also think determining HK's terrorism threat is simply far from what I can do, and perhaps more authoritative information from foreign governments will be needed. (And as an extra point, the HK government defines HK's terrorist threat level as "moderate"). Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming[edit]

I expect complaints over me excising a small amount of text from this article. I removed less than 1% of the article, and it remains considerably longer than our articles for the United States, Japan, China, and every country in the world. Whenever I have suggested cutting down the article for Country X by shifting text to branch articles, there have been objections on the basis that "Country X is special and needs a longer article because...." Yes, every country is special, and Hong Kong is not even a big country by size or population.

Writing a good travel article for readers requires making sometimes difficult decisions about what is most important for travellers, and resisting the temptation to include everything that we know about a place. Ground Zero (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's time to trim the article. Even anglophone countries aren't special in anyway. And as you say, Hong Kong isn't a big country. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic identity[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I was wondering if the way we treat this is fine, or if there is a more sensitive way to handle this. As you know, even though most outsiders consider the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan to be ethnically Chinese, many of their youths categorically reject this identity and find it deeply offensive. Frances Hui, a Hong Kong independence activist in exile in the U.S., actually mentioned that she was deeply offended that "Hongkonger" was not provided as an option for her ethnicity when she was applying for university admissions. And likewise, many of my Taiwanese friends find it deeply offensive when an American whose parents are from Taiwan is called "Chinese-American", and insist that they should be referred to as "Taiwanese-American". Should we take their sentiments into consideration, or are we fine still describing them as ethnic Chinese? The dog2 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can mostly be handled on a case-by-case basis. In what articles do we have a need to talk about ethnicities? In most cases language, residency and country of origin are what matter. And if we talk about ethnic identity, then we cannot decide on behalf of those people: if they don't feel Chinese, then they don't have a Chinese identity. –LPfi (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess mainly in the Hong Kong and Taiwan articles, when we want to describe the culture. There is a clear generational divide though. The older people generally identify as ethnically Chinese even if they may be pro-independence, while the younger people desire a clean break from China and want a separate ethnic identity. It's actually pretty striking in Hong Kong because when I last visited in 2010, everyone pretty much identified as ethnically Chinese regardless of their political persuasion, and the concept of Hong Kong independence was a fringe ideology even among the pro-democracy camp. But during the 2019 protests, there were many reports of kids as young as 12 leaving their homes because their parents were pro-China, while they were pro-independence. The dog2 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably case by case as what LPfi mentioned. If you ask anybody from the far east of Indonesia (such as Papua), they'd refuse to identify themselves as "Indonesian". Much more cases out there, including those that you mentioned. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that like anything else, if these kinds of issues are relevant to travellers, they can be briefly mentioned in the relevant articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the Respect section in the Hong Kong article is already very long, and as the Hong Kong article is longer than the articles of every country in the world, I am opposed to adding more, especially if it just reflects the personal views of one contributor. Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not a personal blog. If anything more is added to that section, I am going to ask for references to reliable outside sources. Ground Zero (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article here, where if you scroll down to the end, it states that only 2.4% of Hongkongers aged 18-24 identify as Chinese. And when they played the Chinese national anthem after Hong Kong won a gold medal at the Olympics, the crowd at a shopping centre in Hong Kong was chanting "We are Hong Kong" in an attempt to drown out the Chinese national anthem. There is actually video evidence of this from YouTube if you look. What this shows is that even though people in Hong Kong are afraid to openly call for independence now with the National Security Law, anti-China sentiment is still very high. The dog2 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the passage we have on the matter, in Respect, "an increasing number of locals, especially the youth, are rejecting the 'Chinese' identity, and instead choosing to identify solely as 'Hongkongers'" is good to have. I don't think we need to tell more about it, although where in the related paragraphs to tell it could be discussed (and the history and the Respect section could perhaps be rewritten, to avoid it drowning in the text mass). –LPfi (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is too much background/context/respect in this article. One survey of one age group of the population does not deserve mention. Surveys are be monkeyed with to get the response the client wants. This would be better in a Wikipedia article. We don't want Wikivoyage to be accused of pushing a particular point of view, when we are just a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, as a local, I think the term "Hong Kong people/Hongkonger" should be generally OK for most of the people travellers will meet in Hong Kong: the point is obvious to pan-democratic/independence leaning people, while I think most pro-establishment people also accepts a dual-Chinese-Hongkonger identity (except 港漂 which mostly and solely align themselves with Mainland China).

Along with asking for reference about the person you're talking with (which is in line with politically-complex destinations like Northern Ireland or Quebec), I think these information are sufficient for fellow travellers?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get in warningboxes[edit]

I changed two cautionboxes ("Note:") into warningboxes, as the notes said you risk 14 or 2 years in prison respectively.

One could easily "make a false statement to an immigration officer" if they ask something one thinks is unimportant but could lead to lengthy questioning, one could give a private lesson and accept some money for it without giving the thing a second thought, one might want to bring herbal cigarettes, and one could have bough some fake trademarked product. Harsh sentences aren't an obviously possible consequence.

I assume that you don't get the toughest sentences for slight oversights or a couple of herbal cigarettes – but we shouldn't just assume things. Please add information on maximal sentences for such minor offences, and if they are reasonable, we can remove the warning boxes. Having a warning for 14 years in prison hidden away just isn't acceptable.

–LPfi (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free flights to Hong Kong[edit]

It's apparently true![5] 500,000 free plane tickets are being given away as part of a campaign to increase tourism. I'm going to try to get one when they become available. Should we mention this in the "Get in" section, maybe in some kind of temporary box, for the next few months? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this would be cool (except for taxpayers...). Don't see why we can't mention this in the article for the next 2–3 months. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism in Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I'm taking it here since it involved two articles. I don't think it's unreasonable to make a comparison between Hong Kong or Macau and mainland China, especially since they're next to each other, and are often visited in a single trip. And not to mention, both Hong Kong and Macau are legally part of China (yes, I know there is the Hong Kong independence movement, but as it now stands, Hong Kong is part of China under international law). We obviously can't go into the weeds here on a travel guide, but to cut a long story short, the official Catholic church in mainland China is run separately from the Vatican, though there is now an interim agreement to allow the Vatican to vet clergy appointments in China too, which is actually opposed by many conservative Catholics. On the other hand, the Catholic church in Hong Kong and Macau is the actual Roman Catholic church run by the Vatican, and the Vatican may appoint bishops in Hong Kong and Macau without prior approval of the Chinese government. For some practising Catholics, that distinction might be important if they plan a trip around Asia; they might want to skip mainland China because they can't find a church that is sanctioned by the Vatican, but be fine with visiting Hong Kong and Macau where they can practise their religion freely. The dog2 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this has very little to do with actual travel. We are a travel guide. You might "don't think it's unreasonable". I think it's encyclopaedic, Catholic travellers surely will learn this from their own priests and bulletin boards, it doesn't matter much whether Wikivoyage features this lenghty and boring description of the situation or not. Ibaman (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are legal implications in this instance. If you go to a Catholic church in mainland China that recognises the Pope as its leader, you are breaking the law and could potentially be arrested and jailed for that. On the other hand, Catholic churches that are sanctioned by the Vatican and hence recognise the Pope as their leader are legal in Hong Kong and Macau, so you won't get into trouble for attending mass in one of them. The dog2 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The China article addresses the situation in mainland China. The Macau and Hong Hong articles should address the situation in those territories. The situation of the Catholic church is complex. The way you described it was so simplified that it gave readers the wrong impression.

The China article deals with the situation in mainland China adequately. It does not need to be repeated in articles that do not cover mainland China. Those articles should focus on travel in Macau and Hong Kong. Ground Zero (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what this is about, and why, given the situation described above, anything more needs to be said in China – I think the wording covers everything we need to tell. I also don't see how Hong Kong and Macau are involved. We don't tell visitors to Åland (where I assume there is no mosque) to go to Turku or Stockholm for their Friday prayer. –LPfi (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem in a short "Unlike in mainland China" being in the Hong Kong article, if this is something that will actually bother most Catholics. Very regular church goers may find this out from their church at home before they leave, but more occasional worshippers (and non-Catholic Christians) may not. Would a traveller see much difference if they went to services either side of the border? AlasdairW (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't know the difference in actual rites. All I know is that in mainland China, the Catholic Church is run separately from the Vatican, and bishops are appointed by the Chinese government. The interim deal in theory allows the Vatican to also have a say on the appointment of bishops, so at least if the deal is followed, bishops appointed by the Chinese government are vetted by the Vatican before their appointment is confirmed. However, many conservative Catholics oppose this deal, since they believed that no government should have any say on the appointment of bishops. On the other hand, the Vatican freely appoints bishops and ordains priests in Hong Kong and Macau, and the Chinese government does not get involved so long as members of the clergy do not violate national security laws. The dog2 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem. The situation in mainland China is complex. As I noted when I undud the edits, your edit was so simplified that it was misleading. Explaining the situation in mainland China takes more detail, which isn't appropriate for the Macau and Hong Kong articles. It smells like soapboxing, not travel writing. Your past history of adding political and historical commentary that is wrong is good reason not to trust your edits. This is another example. Ground Zero (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sometimes disagreed with some of the dog's edits, which seemed to me too detailed or too political, but in this case I agree with Alasdair:

I don't see a problem in a short "Unlike in mainland China" being in the Hong Kong article

It seems likely to matter to some visitors. Pashley (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These two websites indicate that there are no religious objections.[6][7] One is from 2011, and the other is undated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not qualified to give religious advice to Catholics or have a theological debate on this issue. Some Catholics may be OK with attending mass at a state-sanctioned Catholic church in mainland China, some not. That's up to each individual to decide. All we can do is provide the relevant information. But in short, the situation is different in Hong Kong and Macau than in mainland China, because the Chinese government does not appoint Catholic bishops in Hong Kong and Macau. That is done by the Pope, just as it is in most other countries, so a Catholic who objects to the way bishops are appointed in mainland China will not have to worry about facing this dilemma in Hong Kong and Macau. So for our purposes, what's important in the Hong Kong and Macau articles is that we should inform people that the situation is different from mainland China vis-a-vis the Catholic church. The dog2 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that "up to each individual to decide" is exactly how the Roman Catholic Church doesn't operate. When the COVID vaccines came out, there were a handful of American Catholics claiming that their religion prevented them from getting the vaccines. The Vatican said they were religiously acceptable, and the anti-vaxx folks had to decide that either their objections weren't about being catholic, or to quit claiming that taking a pope-approved vaccine was against catholic doctrine.

It's the same logic here:

Someone claims the vaccine is religiously improper, so they just can't
Church says there's nothing wrong, so go ahead

and

Someone claims that the churches in China are religiously improper, so they just can't
Church says there's nothing wrong, so go ahead

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know the difference", "I'm not qualified", you said it all, TD2 dude, hard to disagree, sorry for the corrosive irony, but you really should acknowledge the criticism you've been receiving from the community. Ibaman (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlike in mainland China, the Roman Catholic church is allowed to operate in Hong Kong" is the original edit, plus some completely tangential stuff about CEOs. Yet, "there is now an interim agreement to allow the Vatican to vet clergy appointments in China too", so the situation is more complicated that The dog2's edit suggests. I have no problem covering this in the China article. I have a problem with The dog2 loading political stuff not related to travel in the place covered by an article, especially given their history of just being wrong. It takes up way to much of other editors' time (see the discussion above). Ground Zero (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and going full encyclopedic, eager to include every nuance and exception, completely disregarding WV:Tone directives for a dry, wordy and boring style, just like on Christianity, I think I have a problem with this, too, well said, GZ. Ibaman (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention anything about CEOs. Hong Kong's head of government (and Macau's) is called a "chief executive". Don't ask me why. That's just the way it is. Since people are so vehemently opposed to that, I'll drop that, but that was just to highlight that you'll be fine going to mass at a regular Roman Catholic church sanctioned by the Vatican in Hong Kong, since a number of post-handover heads of government in Hong Kong have been Roman Catholics. That's all that was about. And I did not write anything about the vetting of clergy in the articles themselves. All I'm trying to do here is to highlight that the situation in Hong Kong and Macau is different from that in mainland China. The dog2 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: you did not mention "CEOs", but "chief executives". That term should have been explained for readers not familiar with HK politics. "the Roman Catholic church is allowed to operate in Hong Kong" addresses the point completely adequately without drawing tangential comparisons to the mainland. Ground Zero (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listings for Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I was wondering if there is any point in listing these in cities where they exist. I'm kind of on the fence here. Unlike Taiwan's de facto diplomatic missions, these do not provide consular services; you have to go to the Chinese diplomatic mission for those, but if you are looking to expand your business into Hong Kong for instance, they are ones you should contact, just as you might contact a British embassy or consulate if you want to expand your business into the UK. And if you're planning to immigrate to Hong Kong, these offices can provide some information about adapting to life in Hong Kong, but you still have to go to the Chinese embassy or consulate to apply for the relevant visa. The dog2 (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct says not worth listing if they don't provide any consular services. Pinging 廣九直通車 in case they have an opinion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we're expanding Wikivoyage's mandate to include international business development or immigration, I'd say no. Ground Zero (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HKETOs are mainly responsible for recruiting foreign investors. While they do provide some basic guides about Hong Kong, they are too superficial for the average traveller. Could mention a few words in business travel, but I don't think they should be mentioned in normal articles.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With a few exceptions like the one in Shanghai of course, because that particular HKETO processes visa applications. The dog2 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hong Kong

Some issues with this article[edit]

Currency Decimal Place[edit]

History question[edit]

Hong Kong Island in Get in[edit]

Terminology[edit]

Proposal to convert 'Outlying Islands' to region article[edit]

sub-regions of districts[edit]

The Metro map is in Chinese[edit]

Where to put school children selling charity badges?[edit]

Demonstrations?[edit]

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

New banner suggestion[edit]

Independence[edit]

Cycling[edit]

Currency symbol is confusing[edit]

MTR issues[edit]

Mainland Chinese visa[edit]

Train station article template[edit]

Political Protests[edit]

Attacks on passengers[edit]

Mandarin pronunciation[edit]

Obvious?[edit]

Fares[edit]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

History section.[edit]

Warning that Mandarin-speakers may be attacked[edit]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Facemasks[edit]

Protests[edit]

Warning box[edit]

'add listing' shorthands[edit]

Hong Kong is no longer autonomous[edit]

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

Oh-oh Canada[edit]

Inline Wikipedia and Wikisource links[edit]

Return of colonialism[edit]

Warning box[edit]

Recently added material[edit]

Government gazette[edit]

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

Opium Wars[edit]

Hong Kong: Warning Box[edit]

warning box..[edit]

Trimming[edit]

Ethnic identity[edit]

Get in warningboxes[edit]

Free flights to Hong Kong[edit]

Roman Catholicism in Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

Listings for Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices[edit]

Navigation menu

Search