Talk:Hongkongers/Archive 1

Earlier convos

• to Hlaw, don't you read SCMP? "Hongkonger" appears every day.

• • As a standard test, try search the term in google [1] to see how often it is used. Many (including the top) entries are not even in English. Compare this with, say, Singaporean [2] or New Zealander [3]. - Hlaw 02:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• It is not fair to compare in this way. It is equally common to refer Hongkongers as Hong Kong people, wheareas this is not the case of Singaporeans versus Singaporean people. Furthermore, Singaporean itself is also an adjective, wheareas Hong Kong but not Hongkonger is used as the adjective form. Furthermore English is less commonly used in Hong Kong as in Singapore.
• As a test by searching "Hongkonger" in English, I used Google, searching only pages in English by setting preferences in "Advanced Search". The test result is as follows:

• Hongkonger - 2,690 hits
• Hongkongers - 3,620 hits
• Hong Konger - 982 hits
• Hong Kongers - 15,100 hits

• As a rule of standardisation, I go along with the spelling on SCMP, a locally-published English language newspaper with the largest circulation.

• FYI: entry at Merriam-Webster Online

Going by a search engine hit is pointless. It is natural for 90% of the people to look up by slang versus the politically correct name. In this case every book I have checked references the people in Hong Kong as Hong Kong citizen. This page needs to be at the least renamed to the non-slang term to even be considered official. Benjwong 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I also propose this page be directly linked to Demographics of Hong Kong. Benjwong 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm an international student living in Australia. I never heard 'hongkonger'. We (asian students) normally call people from hongkong as 'hongkie'. It has 37,000 hits from Google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.239.130 (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of translations and meaning of Chinese

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)

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)

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)

Use of Hongkongers

Hello, thanks for all the editors and writers for improving this page dedicated to Hongkongers. "Hong Kong" people is, I am afraid of, an error in English usage that has become Hongkong-ized English. If anyone cares about enough to add that page to explain the etymological history of this, it would be great. Please also link it to the "Chinglish" page. No one who has educated in the English language would say, "English is to England as Hong Kong people is to Hong Kong!!!!" It is "English is to England as HongKonger is to Hong Kong". You could intelligently argue that "Englishman is to England as Frenchman is to France as HongKongman / Hongkongyan / Xianggangren is to Hong Kong". I am confused about the contemporary lumping of Hong Kong into one word HongKong (popularized by airfreight systems that cannot enter a space) or Hongkong (taking a Japanese-style Romanization angle) and HongKongers / Hong Kongers respectively. This has been rather problematic. Can someone kindly advise? No one ever says "Singapore people live in Singapore". That is "Singlish" or "Chinglish" and that "Hong Kong People" or "Hongkongyan" is the same Chinglish expression. It is very endearing though. I personally think term should stay separate as "Hong Konger" because we call New Yorkers and not NewYorkers nor Newyorkers. If you want to associate Hong Kong with New York, it has to stay Hong Konger, if you want to associate Hong Kong efficiency and hi-tech with German cities and Japanese bullet trains, you would write Hongkonger because both German and Japanese are agglutinating languages. I am not sure if Cantonese is the same way or if it is closer to Mandarin. But I have also realised that new (as of Aug 2005) Chinese Pinyin follows the Japanese / German style such as Shanghai, Beijing or Dongqunxiaolu. No one writes Shang Hai or Bei Jing since it would look too confusing and a little silly. It is up to the people to make an intelligent and hopefully POSH judgment call since Hong Kong is a posh city. Cheers!--20SunnyShady 03:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think only the people from HONG KONG have the right to define how they want to be called. All the other people, like some of the annoying editors who give the posh Singaporeans a bad name and who insist on editing every[the original writing has something missing here] else's should just stick to their own Singapore and Singlish pages where they score best. - 194.206.179.4 23:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The point about New Yorkers is well put. However, I think Hongkongers can decide who they call themselves, and outsiders don't need to agree either and may choose to call us something else - just as gweilo for foreigners remain popular in Hong Kong and (generally) nobody would complain. Hongkongers is not meant to be posh, just as Shanghai is no posher than Shang Hai. (On that note apart from some older road signs it has been Shanghai for a very long time hasn't it?) The reason Hongkongers is the title for this page is because this is the term used by the region's largest English language paper, the South China Morning Post. --Mintchocicecream 18:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that any one institution should be allowed to designate a label for an entire population, or that we should go along with said label just because one institution has decided that is what it wants to call an entire population. I grew up in Hong Kong and have never referred to myself, nor any other, as a Hong Konger(or any variation thereof). I have only very rarely heard anyone use such a term and on those rare instances, the speakers were non-native. Most people seem to be confused as to what term designates people from Hong Kong, there are a few different terms being bandied about and it has been a topic of debate for some time. I prefer to say 'people from Hong Kong', I would never say 'I'm a Hong Konger', rather 'I am from Hong Kong' and this is how almost everyone that I know in Hong Kong would describe themselves. Out of the proposed adjectives (Hong Konger, Hong Kongian, Hong Kongese) only Hong Kongese seems even a little bit appropriate. It is in keeping with the adjectives attributed to people from neighbouring cities Shanghai(Shanghainese), Macau(Macanese) and from the surrounding Guangdong/Canton province itself(Cantonese). This latter term is what most local Hong Kong people (of Han Chinese descent) would call themselves anyway, failing a more specific English term for people from Hong Kong.--Schkfrldn (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not the only one having a problem with the term. I personally prefer Hong Kong citizens. This article was deleted earlier as per a similar discussion. Benjwong (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Many thanks to the energetic anonymous editor 194.206.179.4. Numerous though the edits, I feel much of his or her POV got in the way in the article. These are my reasons:

1. Use of esoteric 'transliterations' terms like tsonggokyen or hongkongyan which I have never come across in my life in Hong Kong.
2. Unrelated commentary about definitions of Hongkonger and Mainlander which will not match the general consensus. E.g. on racial 'purity', customs or even socio-political attitudes.
3. Esoteric (yes, again) and POV statements like:
   
   "For example, when filling up an "ethnic identity form" in the UK, Hongkongers are asked the impossible task of categorizing themselves as "Chinese" or not."
   
   and
   
   ""Chinese" in the UK English language can denote both nationals of the PRC as well as nationals of other nations who are "ethnically" Chinese. For example, when filling up an "ethnic identity form" in the UK, Hongkongers are asked the impossible task of categorizing themselves as "Chinese" or not."
   
   ... when clearly Chinese is a blanket term for people who consider themselves ethnic Chinese. It's like the blanket term British to describe English, Scottish or Welsh people or Asian in describing Indian or Pakistanis. It's not an impossible task at all -- e.g. "I am (ethnically) Chinese and I am a Hong Kong citizen holding British Nationality. is not a problem. Nobody is going to say something esoteric like I am a tsonggokyen who is also a hongkongyun - which makes as much sense as it does in HK as in foreign nations - i.e. zilch. Yes, terms used by the governments of the U.S. and UK may not be entirely accurate, but they represent the views of people there (e.g. Pacific Islander would sound really weird in the UK but sounds ok in the U.S.A.) but it is unrelated and not even a reported problem (well, anywhere outside this Wikipedia article). Furthermore, any relation of such information to the term Hongkonger is very limited indeed and goes down a slippery slope...

--Mintchocicecream 23:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

- I agree that the transliteration HeuhngGohngYeahn is a little too esoteric so I deleted it. Thanks for the advice. But I think HongKongyan should stay because that is what a gweilo hears from a native Cantonese Hong Kong person refer Hong Kong as, when posed the question, what do you call yourself, as a person from Hong Kong?

- The Hongkonger will always reply in perfect Jyut Ping Cantonese but the US Canada UK Australia media will ALWAYS PRINT IT as HONGKONGYAN.

And in the Gweilo's ears, HongKongyan indeed IS heard. NOT the standardised Jyut Ping version. They never spell HOENG1 GONG2 YEN3 in New York Times or The Times in London. However, for encyclopedic integrity, I also included every Jyut Ping romanization for academic correctness.

- The confusion on "Chinese" and "China" is that if you reflect and analyse carefully, apart from all the preconceived notions you were taught or inherited, there is no English word that separately represents the meaning of Tangren, Tongyan, Tongyangai (Tangrenjie) i.e. Chinatown, Zhongguo, Zhongguorenminggongheguo (PRC), Zhonghuaminguo (Taiwan) or "Zhongguo" in pre-Qin China which referred to the combined interior of nation-states opposing the nation of Chin / Qin..

- "Chinese" is applied to anything that is East Asian and NOT Japanese or Korean. Anything from the nationals of the People's Republic of China in 2005 to the Manchu lords of past dynasties. This is simply incorrect and the encyclopedia edited by bilinguals should elucidate this as it is a source of many racist politics and ideologies.

- The "simplest" translation is often the most "incorrect" and "inaccurate" translation. For example, chimpanzees are apes, gorillas apes, the homo sapien family is part of the ape family but when someone asks you: What animal species are you from and what animal species is your mother? I hope you do not choose the simplest and easiest answer. If you do, I guess you are correct too.

- I am editor 194.206.179.4. I did not add the POV comments. Someone else added them in to correct by article but because it was written in broken English, I corrected the linguistic portion of it and got framed. Thanks.

-- (unsigned - by 194.206.179.4)

Hong Kong Yan: Do a Google search and you'll find a total of seven results, none of which is from a notable newspaper or media. Wikipedia:Naming_dispute#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms (a proposed policy - but still...) suggests that Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are acceptable (e.g. "Japanese" for Nihon-jin).

Chinese and Confused notion of Chinese: I have never heard this argument anywhere (about causing racist policies nor seeing it applied to anything East Asian but not Japanese nor Korean). Unless you can back this up with any article from a notable souce I think it is in line for deletion as it is POV. I think this is sounds like the view from a very ideological perspective. There are, after all, identification like Han Chinese and the very fact that there is the word Manchu shows that this is not true. To me, this sounds like original research which is discouraged. You aren't writing an encyclopedia to suggest what *should* be done, but what *is* generally considered true. Also, it seems a very unrelated topic to discuss in a Hongkonger article. Maybe it would fit in an article: Chinese (disambiguation) but then if you did I think it would be in line for deletion due to the points I covered above.

--Mintchocicecream 06:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a point that the word Chinese is a bit all-encompassing but it is not the place to add terms. Furthermore, word usage change over time - and Chinese is commonly taken to refer to many things but is still understandably so - just like other words - e.g. cult changed meaning from time to time but the old meaning still makes sense in the correct context. Perhaps an article as such about the limitations of the word Chinese would fit in an lingustic journal or a journal of East Asian studies, but unless it is there already and subjected to peer review and become commonly accepted, it has no place in Wikipedia. Other projects, such as Everything2 or H2G2 would be a different matter, though. --Mintchocicecream 06:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mintchocicecream, Thanks for the discussion update. I am refraining from editing the page anymore so other users can correct it besides you and I so that it will gain a more objective view over time. I hope that you can refrain from editing it too. About Wiki policy, I also noted that it is "comprehensive" and "descriptive", see below.

"Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Suppose that the people of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, the Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach to the term, arguing that it should not be used."

I have been disappointed by many editors who constantly delete articles to fit THEIR own NPOV which they think is the VOICE of GOD and OBJECTIVE. I think that is very egocentric and destroys the Wikipedia project which is a collective effort. Many editors argue, "Because in my ENTIRE life as a human being, I have never heard SO and SO, thus IT SHOULD NOT." That is a prescriptive attitude because even in Hong Kong alone, there are millions of lives and millions of perspectives that do not coincide with yours. The fact that the google search results in Hongkongyan proves that this term is not "too esoteric". In fact, I think "Tsonggokyen" is the rarer one. However, I added it because Jyutping uses ZONG which is mispronounced as Z sound in its initial consonant instead of the TS sound as in Tsar which the Cantonese original is similar to. gokyen or gok yen is similar to Jyutping and is thus NOT esoteric at all.

I think at the moment, with the initial part of the article explaining the superficial meaning of Hongkonger, which develops into ensuing sections that dwell on the more subtle and finer points of the term, is perfect.

I do agree that there should be a "CHINESE" disambiguation idea. I think that is perfect for clarifying the use of the blanket term "Chinese". However, I think the section on HongKongers vs. Mainland Chinese should stay, at least until 2046, because many Westerners do not understand Hong Kong history and the difference between Hong Kongers as opposed to Shanghainese. Increasingly, I see young editors taking Hong Kong to be a specific Chinese race like Shanghainese and hence the currency of the term Hongkongese which is erroneous because Hong Kong is more of a cosmopolitan city of immigrants akin to New York whereas Shanghai consists mainly of Shanghainese, and is more akin to London or Berlin. - 194.206.179.4 09:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your detailed explanation. I will refrain from editing the main page for now as clearly our idea of 'NPOV' is different and it is better for a third party to get involved if they decide to do so. However, I will first explain my views so that you -as well as any daring editor who dares venture into our debate here (haha)- know where I come from. My hope is that this can eventually be developed into a FAC but I would be inclined to think other editors would be concerned about the accuracy of certain things here.

Thinking "z" is mispronounced sounds a little anglo-centric to me. Just as Spanish, French, German pronunciations do not correspond with the English one, Mandarin Chinese pinyin doesn't - nor should I believe Jyutping is wrong in this way. Similarly, the people who developed Jyutping would probably have their own pronunciation schemes which fit certain conventions. I would say a good pronunciation guide would be to use established methods rather than what sounds most "right". The established (as in, most recognized) methods is through Pinyin for Mandarin Chinese and one of the pronunciation guides for Cantonese (I am not sure which is the most popular).

If you want to do something like tsonggokyen it is probably more accurate to use something like IPA type thing - which would look more professional and BE more professional too. Introducing your own scheme (no matter how much more correct it sounds in certain English pronunciations) suggests too much of original research to me. After all, even established authorities can't challenge the most used systems -- whether that is something supposedly better to replace the QWERTY keyboard in computing or the ROC's attempt to introduce Tongyong Pinyin. I would say your pronunciation scheme resembles Hong_Kong_Government_Cantonese_Romanisation - but even then, it is used only for people and place names -- never for descriptive or general words like "中國人".

I don't particularly like the word Hongkongese as it sounds very odd from my perspective, but I believe many do use it and obviously they have the right to use it. (And even if they didn't they'd use it anyway as language is not dictated from above.) I don't believe those who use Hongkongese intend Hongkongers to be a race of any type - it just sounds more right to them and I can't fault them for that.

Finally - do consider starting an account - it does help knowing where you come from and your specific expertise. As you'll see in my user page I'm from HK and studied in the UK so these are areas I will be familiar with.

--Mintchocicecream 17:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And on the point of objectivity, I'd agree. For me, I like to think I am objective - but so does everybody else. For most matters, I take the postmodernist stance that nobody can be truly objective and everything you do/say/whatever reflects your certain peculiarities. --Mintchocicecream 18:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The explanation of the meaning of the word "Chinese" at the bottom is confusing and exemplifies exactly the problems of trying to define it:

Chinese is a popularly-used all-encompassing phrase to refer to (1) the Chinese civilisation, (2) citizens of the People's Republic of China, (3) people who are ethnically one of the many Chinese ethnicities (of which 56 are officially recognised in the PRC), (4) the Chinese language and (5) people identifying themselves as Chinese. In the Chinese language the terms Hua ren and Zhongguo ren are generally used interchangeably within the People's Republic of China and among overseas Chinese in North America. Overseas Chinese in southeast Asia (particularly in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore) and supporters of Taiwanese independence within Taiwan make a clear distinction between Hua ren (Chinese in the ethnic sense) and Zhongguo ren (Chinese in the political sense). When used by non-Chinese, the term Chinese has also been used synonymously with the Han Chinese, which is the majority ethnicity (>92%) within China. Some Chinese reject this usage, and conflicts over this particular usage tend to come up in discussions about ethnic minorities.

The note ends by saying "When used by non-Chinese, the term Chinese has also been used synonymously with the Han Chinese", but if you look at the earlier part of the note, you'll find the definitions given seem to unconsciously assume the Han-non Han distinction that is criticised at the end of the note. When we talk of "Chinese civilisation", we must ask what we mean by "Chinese civilisation"? Does it include "Tibetan culture"? Does it include "Uighur culture"? What is the "Chinese language"? Is it 汉语? Or does it include Uighur, Tibetan, Korean, etc. etc. What are 华人 (Huaren)? In most people's subconscious understanding, Chinese civilisation, Chinese language and Huaren are all really Han-centred concepts, despite attempts by the Chinese government to maintain otherwise. Anyone talking about "Chinese civilisation" is normally unconsciously referring to a Han-centred civilisation, not Uighur or Tibetan or Chaoxianzu culture (I know the boundaries are not clear, but this doesn't make the distinction any less real). Even Chinese, I humbly submit, would unconsciously make this distinction -- although if challenged would come back with the politically-correct version that yes, Tibetan culture is Chinese civilisation.

If you think that I'm assuming too much, then tell me why the broader definition is included as definition (3): "people who are ethnically one of the many Chinese ethnicities (of which 56 are officially recognised in the PRC)"? If this is the REAL definition of "Chinese", why is it put in a little definition of its own, and not included right at the beginning as the full definition of "Chinese"?

So the explanatory note at the end is contradictory. It starts out unconsciously equating Chinese to Han, and then ends with the observation that non-Chinese often equate Chinese with Han!

Explanation of Edits

Mintchocicecream's edits

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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".
4. I also revamped the Differences section. Much should be accepted but if there are any problems do change it as always =).
5. 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.
6. 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)

Things that still need changing

1. I don't understand the "common vernacular" because I am no language expert. Needs to be expanded because encyclopedias should be written so it's understandable for the average person.
2. Racial Purity needs changing. Please. =) As explained in the top, Hongkonger can be of any race thus including this results in a confusion over the phrase Hongkonger.
3. You know what would be really good? Add a ogg sound clip of someone saying 中國人 and 香港人 in Cantonese! That will kill the need for any odd transliterations once and for all.

--Mintchocicecream 23:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Transliterations (reprise)

Instead of Hong-Kong-yan, we should use an official pronunciation system - ie. IPA - as recommended by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(pronunciation). --Mintchocicecream 01:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. :-) — Instantnood 07:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Other ethnic groups

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)

This bit about Hongkongers

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)

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)

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)

general comment

"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)

See also this one (in Chinese).--K.C. Tang 09:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly limit the scope to the context of what is discussed in the sources that can be found. I think much of the article is placed on the assumption that "Hong Konger" or "香港人" are basically people who are long-term residents in HK. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think now 90% of the article is NPOV, if not more...--K.C. Tang 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This page needs to be deleted, moved or seriously overhauled period. There is zero referencing, at most this page is misinformation about a slang. "Hong Kong Yan/香港人" should be translated to Hong Kong citizens. The term does not have to relate to Han Chinese or any ethnic group. Quite frankly look at New Yorker, which is a far more common term than Hong Konger and the page does not dwell on the social terminology. Most books refer to "香港人" as Hong Kong citizen. I am proposing this page be renamed and completely revamped. Hong Konger, HongKonger will link to Hong Kong citizen afterwards. This page cannot even be researched on until this ill-defined term gets corrected. Benjwong 22:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Renamed (plus deleting most of its content) or simply deleted.--K.C. Tang 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Rating

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)