Talk:Hong Kong

Area in the infobox is confusing

The real area is 1114 km2. And you're showing more than double of that because you're counting all the surrounding waters. Since when do we count the sea as part of the area of a territorial entity? 12qwas (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Low quality of Etymology section

香港/Hong Kong first record in Yuet Tai Kee written between 1577 and 1595. It was on north shore of present Aberdeen Island/Ap Lei Chau

香港村: Hong Kong Tsuen, village of Hong Kong, recorded in San-on County Gazetteer 1819

Davis's Hoong-keang came from 紅江 in this 1810 map

This section was written long ago. It is full of misinformation and more accurate information are not put in the article. The etymology of Hong Kong/香港 have been studied in deep since the mid 20th century with handful of scholars writing papers and books on the topic in Hong Kong. It deserves a better rewrite.

1. Missing essential information. The name 香港 was known in 16th century during Ming Dynasty. See the source Empson, Hal (1992). Mapping Hong Kong: A Historical Atlas. Government Information Services. OCLC 29939947, which reprinted a map on page 17 and 84 with name "Coastal Map of Kwong Tung by Kwok Fei (郭棐) in Yuet Tai Kee (粵大記)". Yuet Tai Kee/粵大記 is frequently cited in many scholar works on this topic. (See Yuet Tai Kee map)
2. Missing essential information. Aquilaria sinensis, an incense wood, is very significant to the etymology of the Hong Kong. See the source "Aquilaria sinensis and origin of the name of Hong Kong". Hong Kong Herbarium, that citing Professor Lo Hsiang-lin's suggesting the strong relationship between the plant and Hong Kong.
3. Missing essential information. 香港村/香港圍, a village in very important to the history of Hong Kong. It was the reason why Hong Kong was picked up as the name of colony. (See 1819 San-on County Gazetteer)
4. Trivial and misinformation. Davis's 1841 book noted - The name Hong-kong is a provincial corruption of Hoong-keang , "the red torrent ," from the colour of the soil through which the stream flows previous to its fall over the cliff. This description is quite possible that Davis misinterpreted Chinese labels on a 1810 map. The Chinese labels were the phonetic value of English(Portuguese) labels that 紅江, proximate pronunciation of Hong Kong (香港), by comparing with rest of labels (九龍→Cow-loon→ 九龍, 鯉魚門→Ly-ee-moon→ 禮衣門, 南丫→Lama→ 藍麻, 長洲→Cheung-chow→涌洲, 交椅洲→Cowee-chau→九以洲, 東涌→Toong-chung→同中) . Davis wrongly reinterpreted 紅江 as the red torrent. These funny labels were discussed in the source Mapping Hong Kong. Is it worth to put misinformation here? (See 1810 map)
5. Wrong reference. In the article, the two key statements are particularly problematic: "Fragrant" may refer to the sweet taste of the harbour's freshwater influx from the Pearl River or to the odour from incense factories lining the coast of northern Kowloon. The incense was stored near Aberdeen Harbour for export before Victoria Harbour was developed. The reference link referred to the book "Room, Adrian (2005). Placenames of the World. McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-2248-7". The two statements are not what the book said:
   • In book, it located in Hong Kong Harbour between Hong Kong Island and mainland Kowloon, obviously Victoria Harbour, not Aberdeen Harbour.
   • In book, freshwater was from Xi Jiang River, not Pearl River.
   • In book, the odour was coming from opium or incense factory on the shore of the harbour.
   • In book, no mention of northern Kowloon.
6. Misinformation and unreliable source. Placenames of the World by itself is not a reliable source. No specific sources support its claims. How could it be sweet taste of the harbour's freshwater when Pearl River/Xi Jiang River was dirty river. How could the salty sea water of Victoria Harbour and Aberdeen Channel would be sweet taste? The author probably have no idea in geography of Hong Kong and the information is against common sense, long creeping in Wikipedia text and passing misinformation to reader. BTW, Fresh water comes from other stories but it is too long to discuss here.

It would be wonderful should anyone rewrite this faulty section. @Remsense

— HenryLi (Talk) 01:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we have different senses of what information is essential in this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and whatever you think should be changed, it would not be acceptable to expand the Names section far beyond its present size, that would be wholly unbalanced when the totality of what deserves to be discussed is taken into account—HK is a special case in that it should deserve a section discussing matters of lexicography and etymology at all. Remsense ‥ 论 01:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Balance does not mean misinformation and unreliable source are allowed. Some trivial could be removed and essential could be added.

Here I raise the concern and anyone could rewrite. If you could write it briefly, it would be nice. — HenryLi (Talk) 01:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

In regard to the issue of brevity, it seems to me that the solution to that problem is just to create the article Etymology of Hong Kong. Yue🌙 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is how you say it is, then I agree it should need a re-write. “Sweet taste of fresh water” in the harbour, miles away from the estuary and directly exposed to the Pacific ocean, is absolutely bonkers if you ask me. Andro611 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we class HK as an authoritarian dictatorship by now?

After increasing authoritarianism within Hong Kong regarding the passing of several new laws, the crackdown of dissent and the censorship of the Pro- Kdf122 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Good news! This article already seems to discuss all those things according to how they're represented in reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 19:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)