Talk:Hongkongers/Archive 1

message: I don't think it is appropriate to use esoteric transliterations like HeuhngGohngYeahn or HongKongyan in the text.  Also, there are numerous odd things in there - e.g. Chinese can refer to both a Chinese National (meaning citizen of the PRC) as well as a person who is ethnically Chinese (which does not necessarily belong nor even recognize the PRC).  So I can't see any incorrect usage in calling 中國人 Chinese...  Just as in Chinese, 中國人 can refer to people of the middle kingdom, Chinese nationals or simply, er, Chinese... --Mintchocicecream 23:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think all the translations are esoteric.  People in HK don't use the term 'hongkonger'  because... well they speak cantonese.  Having at least 香港人 is appropriate at least to demonstrate what native HK call themselves.  But I agree some of the other more esoteric stuff is a bit irrelevant. :novacatz 10:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 香港人 is appropriate (well, I added it); though the transliteration aren't.  See discussion below for more information  --Mintchocicecream 18:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of translations and meaning of Chinese 

message: ; Mintchocicecream's edits
# I removed tranliterations such as tsonggokyen and hongkongyan instead opting for a footnote that, amongst other things, mentions Jyutping and Hanyu Pinyin and noting crucially that the letters used in romanisations do not necessarily correspond to the usage in the English language.
# Ethnic Chinese:  I removed opposed to themselves because it's just an identifier.  It can be considered neutral - just as a mainland Chinese would refer to a person from Shanghai as 上海人.
# Americans:  I removed in the same way residents of the federal entity of the United States of America are known as Americans because America differs:  People can be Asian-American, Afro-American, etc. -- it's quite different and far from being "the same way".
# I also revamped the Differences section.  Much should be accepted but if there are any problems do change it as always =).
# Cosmopolitanism:  I changed the focus on COUNTRIES (thus NATIONALS) rather than ETHNICITY/RACES to make this article easier to read.  Thus, I removed descendants of Tang, Ming and Qing families as there is already a disambiguation note on the use of the word Chinese at the bottom.  Chinese should be understandable and uncontroversial after noting that statement at the bottom.
# Cosmopolitanism: Europeans and Asians:  I removed the massive list of Europeans and the word "intermarried" (marry within the same ethnic, social, or family group) because they aren't really needed.  Again, to simplify the article, I am focusing on nationals other than ethnicity -- thus "Indians" rather than "Hindi, Brahmins and Punjabis")--Mintchocicecream 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of Edits 

message: I agree with the stub section identifier...  In particular, the section needs cleaning up and more detail:  In particular, there are many Filipinas working as maids - but also in many other professions too...  I don't know enough to write more but someone else might!  In addition, more details could be added on assimilation into HK -- there are many 'foreigners'/non-Chinese (asian/european/african/american/etc) who consider themselves as Hongkongers because well, they lived and studied/worked in Hong Kong in the same way as the ethnic Chinese...
Again, I don't know enough on the subject to be able to contribute meaningfully but others might!!--mintchocicecream 15:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other ethnic groups 

message: Quoting this bit Hong Kong citizens are polite, well respect of others and very gentleman like. I would like to ask if this person have been to HK before, if so did he write this from the government laptop which prompted him to tell the world HK people are as gentlemanly as British people, from my and other people's experience I know, they are compared to mainland Chinese, but compared to the Oversea Born Chinese I know of, a lot them are not. Willirennen 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would like to know if you wrote your comment from the laptop of a government watchdog group which prompted you to tell the world that the person who added the quote above must have been spouting government propaganda, from my and other editors' experience I know of, the above quote is guilty of a lack of reference, but guilty of government propaganda, it is not.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for any offense above as that was written with a little bit of humor, just don't take it personally :) Willirennen 01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This bit about Hongkongers 

message: "Hong Konger" is simply a too ill-defined idea. It's difficult to write about a thing when you can't even define it clearly. I have no idea how to edit this article. I even doubt its raison d'être. Source is also a huge problem. (I can only find this one so far).--K.C. Tang 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also this one (in Chinese).--K.C. Tang 09:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: yes, everything goes back to the question: Who are the Hong Kongers?  I think we can begin the article with something like this, if enough sources can be found: Hong Konger is an ill-defined term. Legally there is no definition for it... some think a Hong Konger is so-and-so (source)... some think so-and-so (source)... [With all the NPOV assumptions removed]...-K.C. Tang 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think now 90% of the article is NPOV, if not more...--K.C. Tang 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of the article is just poorly written, and most of it is about the demographics of HKers.  A lot of that is probably covered or should be covered in other Hong Kong-related articles.  Like for example, the bits about what languages HKers speak is probably either already covered or should be covered in Languages of Hong Kong.  Etc, etc.  This article should probably concentrate on the identity of what a HKer is.  Now in the context of information that is directly related to how a "HKer" is identified and defined, I don't think we need to trim away the NPOV statements.  Simply because it's not a well-studied subject, and there aren't really any authoritative sources for it.  Basically, most of the information we'd find is probably going to be NPOV.  What we should probably do is include different information from different POVs, and make sure we attribute those statements to their sources.  For example, "According to So-And-So, a Hong Konger is someone who..."  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point, but some trimming seems sorely necessary. The sect "Differences between Hongkongers and mainlanders" really seems to me horrible... I wonder if there would be any source saying things like those. I haven't studied the history of the article carefully, but it seems that part was written by some anonymous users - we can't even discuss with them.-K.C. Tang 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, we should get rid of the poorly written stuff like that section you mentioned.  I took a glance at the Chinese version of the article, and it looks a lot better written.  What I'm guessing is that this article started as a translation of the Chinese article, but then some of the more poorly written stuff were added on.  That "Differences between Hongkongers and mainlanders" section is much bigger on the English version than on the Chinese version.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the Chinese version isn't very well-sourced, either, although it seemingly tries to give a more objective account of the thing... hope we can hear what others think soon. Cheers. :)--K.C. Tang 06:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. Renamed (plus deleting most of its content) or simply deleted.--K.C. Tang 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to delete instead of rename.  The major problems that exist on this article right now will still exist even if we rename the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  general comment 

message: I rated this article for WPHK as a Start class article.  Despite its length, I think the article is a mess and most of it could probably be deleted.  If anybody disagrees, feel free to change the rating to B.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating