Talk:Politics of Hong Kong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project! | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
|
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
|
Hong Kong To-do:
Project Maintenance
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Article 23
Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law appears to be something of an issue at the moment; does anybody know anything about it in order to write an article or an addition to an existing article? A general article about the Hong Kong Basic Law would be a good thing, too. - Khendon 17:02, November 19, 2002 (UTC)
Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law appears to be something of an issue at the moment; does anybody know anything about it in order to write an article or an addition to an existing article? A general article about the Hong Kong Basic Law would be a good thing, too. --Cylauj 17:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Region Name
Under "Region name", there are two listed forms of names :
local long form: Xianggang Tebie Xingzhengqu
local short form: Xianggang
I am currently living in Hong Kong (and I've been living here since I was born) but have never heard of such name. Those names are Pinyin transcriptions, which is a romanization method for Mandarin Chinese; however, the predominant dialect here is Cantonese, which is related with the term "Hong Kong" since it is the romanization of the name of the place in cantonese. So, it's not very accurate to say that the name is a "local" one.
By the way, the "local long form" means "The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong" and the "local short form" means "Hong Kong".
--Cylauj 17:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I edited the "Local * Form" to "* form (in pinyin)" to reflect the better truth. -- Tomchiukc 07:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Blatantly?
The term "blatantly" used in reference to the July 1st Protests sounds biased to me. I believe "obviously" is a discouraged term; "blatantly" is pretty synonymous with that. If it was explicitly stated, I'd say "explicitly"; otherwise I'd leave it as "a pro-Beijing festival and fair." Mariko 04:50, July 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, the term "blatantly" seems to give emphasise on a bias opinion (in this case anti-Beijing sentiment). I would also suggest removing the word in its entirity as Mariko has suggested. Cadogan 13:44, July 2, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Voting system
I added information concerning the voting systems used in both the GCs and FCs in the LegCo elections. I don't know whether I should discuss the ramifications of using such systems; perhaps I should start another HK-specific thread on this? - Darylngan 20:55, December 5, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Point form
I found the point-form information really annoying. Why couldn't the writer present in a paragraph? This problem exists in many Hong Kong-related articles. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 3 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
- Should those information be deleted? It is the standard way of presenting, and it allows quick comparison between countries. Many of these point-form materials come from the CIA World Factbook. — Instantnood 18:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Breaking is necessary but too much point-form makes the article difficult to read, especially when the fragments are small. Some small headers are in fact not necessary since things happened continuously, not in a discrete manner. Besides, I thought we should tell the concept rather than present the data. Politics of the United States is a very good example.--218.102.224.237 06:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
Some pictures for this article would be great. If someone has the time, please see if you can find some. Commons might even have some pictures of the July 1 protest in 2003. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
