Talk:Election Committee (Hong Kong)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Worldwide view
editWhile I appreciate there are some simarities between the HK election committees and US electrocal colleges, there is no need to compare them so much. The article needs to be written so that people who don't understand either can get to know about the HK EC. N.B. I'm talking about the article here [1] Nil Einne 11:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed (what I think are) the more irrelevant comparisons. Leaf of Silver 11:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Election Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/beijing-switches-sides-in-the-race-for-hong-kongs-chief-executive-627489/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Election Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/beijing-switches-sides-in-the-race-for-hong-kongs-chief-executive-627489/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227071941/http://www.eac.gov.hk/pdf/ecse/en/ecss_chap1.pdf to http://www.eac.gov.hk/pdf/ecse/en/ecss_chap1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hong Kong English
editIt has been suggested that something called "Hong Kong Englsh" be the standard for this article on the basis that "The standard is used in HK-related articles to allow for regionalisms, variations in spelling, and loanwords used in articles related to Hong Kong." I invite interested editors to illustrate with examples from the article where this has any relevance. The specific defect in suggesting that an article be "Hong Kong English" is that it leaves completely open the question of whether British or American English spellings ought to be used as well as grammatical conventions and usages. So-called "Hong Kong English" provides no guidance whatsoever to this question and this is by far the most significant question an answer to which is required by editors working on the page. As far as loanwords are concerned, to confine the article to, say, British English does not constrain the use of such terms, e.g. yum cha. As for "regionalisms", that is just simply too vague to address. Perhaps, that can be fleshed out by someone. The bottom line is that for textual material, if editors are to be given a guidepost, "Hong Kong English" is as good as hanging up a blank plank. sirlanz 07:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- As I said in the edit description you quoted, there is enough difference to make the distinction, and enough explanation to guide editors. You may read the article on Hong Kong English yourself to answer all the questions asked above. Kdm852 (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Editors might be assisted in this matter by asking themselves what is the predominant form of written English used in Hong Kong and, inanswering that question, to constrain themselves to something that can be identified as at least a loosely organised standard, not to, for example, a completely amorphous jumble, because the purpose of attaching a written language standard to an article is to provide editorial guidance and article uniformity. sirlanz 10:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, and, one would assume, that editors familiar with the standard of English used in Hong Kong (as a former British colony using Commonwealth English) should have little difficulty in this regard. Additionally, editors not familiar with the nomenclature of Hong Kong, or the particulars of spelling commonly used in the territory, should refrain from making changes to the language. This would be analogous to editors from the United States who may not be familiar with Commonwealth English spelling should generally refrain from correcting this (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling). According to the WP guidelines: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." Since Hong Kong English not only has its own article on Wikipedia, but is also listed on the List of dialects of English, I think it meets this criterion. The article regarding Hong Kong English also has, in the references section, a number of texts and guides which editors who may need further resources to edit in Hong Kong English may find useful. Kdm852 (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Written English in Hong Kong is, we appear to be completely agreed, is predominantly British English. I do not agree that there is a sufficiently definable language called "Hong Kong English" and the WP article does nothing whatsoever to support the idea except to the limited extent of oral English used in Hong Kong. How is it suggested that a "language" whose existence can only made out by reference to oral expression be relevant to the writing style to be used in WP? I find the concurrent suggestions that it is widely known that British English prevails in Hong Kong yet at the same time on insisting on removing that guidance to editors on the ground that "everyone knows" completely unsupportable. Please respond to my request for any example in the article which is negatively affected by guidance to editors to use British English - I can find none. sirlanz 02:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I feel we are nearing the point of disagreement. As you say, we agree that it is "predominantly" Commonwealth English (as is Australian English, New Zealand English, and so on), however, there are differences based on influence from other local languages, and terms used even in formal writing which are not used elsewhere (similarly to Indian English, Pakistani English, or Singapore English). I do not agree with your assertion that I would have to provide you with an example of an article in order to support the change to Hong Kong English, since, as I've said before, WP guidelines state that where there is a national variation of English, it should be used on articles related to that nation. Also, as it seems this can be settled by refernce to the underlying logic of the argument. Likewise, I did not "remove" the designation note to editors, I switched it to "Hong Kong English" since the article pertained to Hong Kong, and therefore the local dialect of English should be used. Whether the use of British English would most often be suficient or not is not the issue, it is a standard of English as it pertains to Britain, and since Hong Kong has regional variations, and is quite likely to change further over time as the political connection with the UK has been largely severed, there is every reason to use the Hong Kong English designation over the EngvarB. Kdm852 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The suggestion was that an example be found in this article. If there is none, that is sufficient as a demonstration that the idea of leaving editors adrift as to what known written English style to use (by restraining them to use a non-existing written English standard) is not supported and that is the end of the matter and we must revert the edit. If an editor wishes to provide support for specifying Hong Kong Englsh here, he/she may cast the net wider and press into service some other article as an example. If even that cannot be achieved, we can all see how erroneous it is (and unhelpful to editors) to specify a chimera. sirlanz 04:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The assertion was that no example was necessary as the WP guidelines already make it clear that where a national form of English is present, that form should be the one used in articles related to that country. No counter-argument has been made as to why this WP guideline should be ignored. No rationale has been given for why a different form of English should be used than the one specified in the guideline. No justification has been given for the assertion that HK English (currently used on over 2,000 articles on WP) is not recognised despite being listed in the WP list of English dialects, having its own WP article, and having a WP template code to denote articles written in this dialect. No justification has been given for the assertion that HK English is a "non-existant standard" despite references given to the contrary. No justification has been given for the use of "British" English on an article that is not about "Britain". No refutation has been given to the correlation drawn between HK English and other dialects of English, such as those used in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc. If there is genuinely a disagreement about the use of Hong Kong English, it should be taken to the Talk page about either HK English, the guidelines page about dialects of English, or to the relevant wikiproject discussion page. Kdm852 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- So all that can be put forward is policy, policy, policy, policy but not one word identifying its relevance in practice to this article. The reason for this is that the policy, policy, policy, policy is being misapplied, an oral variant of the English language is being applied to a textual document. Try this: provide one specific extract from the Hong Kong English page, such as it is, which has any effect whatsoever on the content of this subject page. If that cannot be done, what is its relevance? How does the policy (as we are told it relies entirely upon what we find in the Hong Kong English page) guide editors in preparing text to appear on WP? sirlanz 06:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Considering you've not responded to any of the actual arguments I made in support of the following of this policy, I see no reason to continue this discussion. To my mind, it seems that you are attacking what you have previously described as a "defective form of English". I am not sure why, but as I've said, there is no need to continue at this point. "British English" is a form of English to be used on articles related to "Britain". Hong Kong is a separate entity with its own variation, and the editors' mark should reflect this. If you wish to deviate from the establish standard of uses of English on WP, I suggest you justify your stance better than you have done, rather than insisting that "British English" be the standard for articles which are not related to "Britain". Kdm852 (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Policy as provided by Kdm852: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". Hong Kong English is not a formal language, it is entirely colloquial (see Hong Kong English which establishes that incontrovertibly), so to specify it here is a breach of that policy. sirlanz 07:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The policy states that the formal version of the local language should be used when there is a strong tie to an English-speaking nation. The fact that Hong Kong English has close ties to British English, and is almost identical to it does not overrule the fact that it is the Hong Kong variant of that language which should be used. As I've said before, see the refernce to the use of Australian English which is likewise almost identical in its formal form to British English, and yet this policy applies to articles about Australia. Hong Kong English is not a language at all, almost no varients of English are, they are dialects. The English used in Hong Kong is, by definition, Hong Kong English, and not British (words such as 'amah', 'walla walla', 'village vehicle', 'kaito', are not commonly used in "British English", whereas they are used in formal settings in Hong Kong, and are even mentioned in law here). This argument does not breach this policy. The style description for Hong Kong English already mentions that, formally, the spelling generally follows the Commonwealth English standards, so I see no reason why this would be confusing to an editor who is familiar with this style. Kdm852 (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is it being suggested that there is any other standard of formal English (written) used in Hong Kong other than British English? Who on Earth has any clue what "Commonwealth English" is? sirlanz 10:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Policy as provided by Kdm852: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". Hong Kong English is not a formal language, it is entirely colloquial (see Hong Kong English which establishes that incontrovertibly), so to specify it here is a breach of that policy. sirlanz 07:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Considering you've not responded to any of the actual arguments I made in support of the following of this policy, I see no reason to continue this discussion. To my mind, it seems that you are attacking what you have previously described as a "defective form of English". I am not sure why, but as I've said, there is no need to continue at this point. "British English" is a form of English to be used on articles related to "Britain". Hong Kong is a separate entity with its own variation, and the editors' mark should reflect this. If you wish to deviate from the establish standard of uses of English on WP, I suggest you justify your stance better than you have done, rather than insisting that "British English" be the standard for articles which are not related to "Britain". Kdm852 (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- So all that can be put forward is policy, policy, policy, policy but not one word identifying its relevance in practice to this article. The reason for this is that the policy, policy, policy, policy is being misapplied, an oral variant of the English language is being applied to a textual document. Try this: provide one specific extract from the Hong Kong English page, such as it is, which has any effect whatsoever on the content of this subject page. If that cannot be done, what is its relevance? How does the policy (as we are told it relies entirely upon what we find in the Hong Kong English page) guide editors in preparing text to appear on WP? sirlanz 06:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The assertion was that no example was necessary as the WP guidelines already make it clear that where a national form of English is present, that form should be the one used in articles related to that country. No counter-argument has been made as to why this WP guideline should be ignored. No rationale has been given for why a different form of English should be used than the one specified in the guideline. No justification has been given for the assertion that HK English (currently used on over 2,000 articles on WP) is not recognised despite being listed in the WP list of English dialects, having its own WP article, and having a WP template code to denote articles written in this dialect. No justification has been given for the assertion that HK English is a "non-existant standard" despite references given to the contrary. No justification has been given for the use of "British" English on an article that is not about "Britain". No refutation has been given to the correlation drawn between HK English and other dialects of English, such as those used in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc. If there is genuinely a disagreement about the use of Hong Kong English, it should be taken to the Talk page about either HK English, the guidelines page about dialects of English, or to the relevant wikiproject discussion page. Kdm852 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The suggestion was that an example be found in this article. If there is none, that is sufficient as a demonstration that the idea of leaving editors adrift as to what known written English style to use (by restraining them to use a non-existing written English standard) is not supported and that is the end of the matter and we must revert the edit. If an editor wishes to provide support for specifying Hong Kong Englsh here, he/she may cast the net wider and press into service some other article as an example. If even that cannot be achieved, we can all see how erroneous it is (and unhelpful to editors) to specify a chimera. sirlanz 04:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I feel we are nearing the point of disagreement. As you say, we agree that it is "predominantly" Commonwealth English (as is Australian English, New Zealand English, and so on), however, there are differences based on influence from other local languages, and terms used even in formal writing which are not used elsewhere (similarly to Indian English, Pakistani English, or Singapore English). I do not agree with your assertion that I would have to provide you with an example of an article in order to support the change to Hong Kong English, since, as I've said before, WP guidelines state that where there is a national variation of English, it should be used on articles related to that nation. Also, as it seems this can be settled by refernce to the underlying logic of the argument. Likewise, I did not "remove" the designation note to editors, I switched it to "Hong Kong English" since the article pertained to Hong Kong, and therefore the local dialect of English should be used. Whether the use of British English would most often be suficient or not is not the issue, it is a standard of English as it pertains to Britain, and since Hong Kong has regional variations, and is quite likely to change further over time as the political connection with the UK has been largely severed, there is every reason to use the Hong Kong English designation over the EngvarB. Kdm852 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Written English in Hong Kong is, we appear to be completely agreed, is predominantly British English. I do not agree that there is a sufficiently definable language called "Hong Kong English" and the WP article does nothing whatsoever to support the idea except to the limited extent of oral English used in Hong Kong. How is it suggested that a "language" whose existence can only made out by reference to oral expression be relevant to the writing style to be used in WP? I find the concurrent suggestions that it is widely known that British English prevails in Hong Kong yet at the same time on insisting on removing that guidance to editors on the ground that "everyone knows" completely unsupportable. Please respond to my request for any example in the article which is negatively affected by guidance to editors to use British English - I can find none. sirlanz 02:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, and, one would assume, that editors familiar with the standard of English used in Hong Kong (as a former British colony using Commonwealth English) should have little difficulty in this regard. Additionally, editors not familiar with the nomenclature of Hong Kong, or the particulars of spelling commonly used in the territory, should refrain from making changes to the language. This would be analogous to editors from the United States who may not be familiar with Commonwealth English spelling should generally refrain from correcting this (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling). According to the WP guidelines: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." Since Hong Kong English not only has its own article on Wikipedia, but is also listed on the List of dialects of English, I think it meets this criterion. The article regarding Hong Kong English also has, in the references section, a number of texts and guides which editors who may need further resources to edit in Hong Kong English may find useful. Kdm852 (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Kdm852, the nub of your point seems to be that "WP guidelines already make it clear that where a national form of English is present, that form should be the one used in articles related to that country". The obvious response (aside from using 'national' and 'country' with respect to Hong Kong - let's not go there) is that there is no local 'form of English' in any defined sense. There are merely certain inconsistent idiosyncrasies of English usage, aka errors, which are not reproduced by any official or reference users such as universities or major publications. (An exception is the scattering of local vocabulary, such as nullah and shroff, which is accepted usage.) The Hong Kong Government is standardised on British English, which seems as good a benchmark as any. Onanoff (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Choosing the Chief Executive
editIt seems this section has some inaccurate figures which need to be changed in accordance with the new changes made in 2021. Here is a link that could help: https://www.cmab.gov.hk/improvement/en/ceo-committee/index.html