Talk:Hong Kong Voyage Tips and guide

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 1 October and 9 October 2007.

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

When I wrote the above comment, this article was 275,000 bytes. It has since grown to 284,000 bytes. My trimming over the last few days has brought it down to 278,000 bytes, despite efforts by certain contributors to restore information that is repeated from the KK International Airport article. This article is still much longer than the article for China. Ground Zero (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we may need an edit notice to warn editors (it's not a perfect solution and doesn't work on mobile, but it will serve as an active reminder). I'm happy to implement it if you think it might be needed. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That would be useful. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

It's apparently true![1] 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

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.[2][3] 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

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

I really think this should be mentioned somewhere. The entertainment industry is an important part of Hong Kong's history and identity. It may not be well-known in the West, but Hong Kong's entertainment industry is well-known across the Chinese speaking world, and for many years was one of the main draws for ethnic Chinese tourists visiting Hong Kong. There is the Avenue of the Stars which is basically the Hollywood Walk of Fame and Grauman's Chinese Theatre combined into one, but with the focus on Hong Kong cinema. And there are also tours that take people to filming sites of famous scenes in Hong Kong movies. It has declined in the past decade or so because the mainland market is now far more lucrative, but the entertainment industry is still universally recognised across the Chinese-speaking world as integral to Hong Kong's identity. The dog2 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree Hong Kong cinema is worth mentioning in some way, as the city's film industry has been incredibly influential relative to its population size, and I think it's still a draw for tourists. I'm not sure "declined precipitously" is fair (notable movies are still coming out of Hong Kong), but it's true that Hong Kong's importance in film has faded as mainland China's has surged. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And there's also Hong Kong TV serials. TV serials produced by TVB are well-known across the Chinese-speaking world too. Chow Yun-fat, Tony Leung Chiu-wai and Andy Lau all go their breaks in TVB serials before transitioning to movies. The Bund from 1980 is a particularly iconic series that everyone knows of it, even if they were not born yet when it was release. And Chinese pop, both Mandarin and Cantonese, has also been a huge draw for tourists to Hong Kong. People still travel to Hong Kong to attend concerts by the likes of Leon Lai, Jacky Cheung, Andy Lau and Eason Chan. The dog2 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does it make sense to be adding even more text to one of the longest articles that Wikivoyage has without removing anything else? Is it your intent to make this article completely unusable as a travel guide to Hong Kong? Ground Zero (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've tried to shorten it. But I really do think Hong Kong cinema should be mentioned because it is an important part of Hong Kong's identity. It may be obscure in the West, but if you're Chinese, the importance of Hong Kong to the history of Chinese cinema cannot be overstated. The dog2 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. This is a start. Now the article has been scaled back to where it was on June 4. It remains a difficult article to navigate because of the amount of detail. It would very easier to read if some of the content were branched off into topic articles. Ground Zero (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@廣九直通車: I've been reading online that Open Rice has a bad reputation because they supposedly post paid reviews, and restaurants can pay them to remove bad reviews. Is that true, or is it just a rumour spreading around foreigners? And if that is true, where do locals go instead if they want to look for restaurant reviews? The dog2 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have managed to cut this article so that it is shorter than the article for China, whose population is about 2,000 times that of Hong Kong. I will keep working on it, but I have no doubt that the article will go back to growing steadily if left unattended. I will ask other editors not to make this article longer:

• If you have something to add, try your best to add it instead to one of the sub-articles.
• If you really think it has to be in the main article, remove an equivalent amount of text, or more an equivalent amount if text to a sub-article.

To prevent this article from expanding and becoming less useful for readers, I will not hesitate to undo edits that make it longer. Ground Zero (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It really seems like this article has been hit by a redundancy stick. Repeating the same information in different sections makes this article longer and less useful without providing more information to readers. Ground Zero (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I agree with this revert. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 21:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't object to some trimming of the article, but I think that the comparison of article size with China is not helpful. Hong Kong is both a city and (for most visitors) a country. So a comparison might be China + Beijing. It is slightly smaller than the article for Singapore which is a better comparison. AlasdairW (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hong Kong as a city is districted, so it should not have details in the main article. Hong Kong as a country should have information branched off into topic articles as appropriate. No article should be so large as to deter readers from navigating through it easily. Ground Zero (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you should keep working on expanding the article for China instead. 202.40.137.198 07:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply