Talk:Handover of Hong Kong

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): D Peretin10. Peer reviewers: D Peretin10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Handover

Many links pointed to handover can be changed to be pointed here. Great job Jerry. :-) — Instantnood 16:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Need copy-editing category

Improvements to the English have been made by many contributors. I do not see anything wrong with the English now. Ought not the administrators remove this article from the "need copy-editing" category? PM Poon —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 31 July 2005.

Referencing

I was able to find alot of the references in a number of books. There was 1 link about canadians moving back to Hong Kong in numbers. I could not find any solid statistics on it. So it was deleted. Benjwong 06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

'tabled'

This article, along with several others in the Hong Kong/Macau cluster uses 'table' in its British meaning of 'to propose for consideration' instead of its exactly opposite American meaning of 'to remove temporarily from consideration'.
I'm familiar with en.wp's rules about these issues, but this does seem like a special case; what might we do to disambiguate this?
--Baylink 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are two instances of the term, one in the "Major events ..." box and one in the British concession section. I'm piping each to Table_(verb)#Commencing_discussion.
  There's another option, which should be used only after those more familiar with British & Hong Kong legislative language speak their minds: pipe a less technically precise term over the same link.

This would permit Brits who think to themselves "What, 'brought forward'? If they mean 'tabled', why don't they just say it?" to follow the link, and then say "Oh, of course: the bloody Yanks!".

Conversely, Yanks too bloody-minded or too bloody ignorant to bother looking at a link piped as "tabled" (when they damn well know that tabling a bill pretty much kills it), will still get the drift, and may even read the wonderful Table (verb) article (at the risk of losing their sense of identity in the shock of learning something about the rest of the world -- but hey, you can't make an omelet...).

But of course, as i say, my acting on my guess that "brought forward" makes sense across the puddle would make it a reckless guess.
--Jerzy•t 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

"*Chinese American rapper Jin Auyeung has a song called 1997 in his Cantonese album ABC, which he makes references to the handover, bus uncle, 10 years of Hong Kongs return to China."
"Bus Uncle" is an internet meme, and "Hong Kongs" should be "Hong Kong's"... I checked the rapper's page on Wikipedia and also did a google search, there does not appear to be any other known correlation between "bus uncle" and this singer. The grammar also doesn't make sense. I'm led to believe this paragraph is, in whole or part, vandalism. Can someone with more knowledge take a look?
--206.248.181.205 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Titling issues

Sovereignty

I've removed the words "the sovereignty" from the title and lead sentence to try and be NPOV about the PRC and UK positions. The Joint Declaration signed by both makes an assumption of Chinese sovereignty. That's as close to a source as we can get, and as a primary source, is unimpeachable. The article discusses the sovereignty issue in the text through the context of a narrative historical review of events.
In any case, since "sovereignty" and who held it has some dispute, it's easiest, best, and most neutral to simply title the article without the term.
-- SchmuckyTheCat 15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The new title is misleading - do you think you could have discussed the move, first, and tried to find a better solution? I have moved the article back. As stated on WP:AN/I, this title gives "an initial impression that Hong Kong was put on a barge by the UK and shipped to the PRC in 1997". I am not expert, but it seems "Transfer of the sovereignity of" was better than just "Transfer of", and it's a big enough change that an arbitrary move is not helpful. Proto::► 23:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Change" could have done the job, and perhaps better (since by even the most PRC-generous interpretation there was a change in the degree and kinds of sovereignty actually exercised by China). What seems to have resulted -- rename [back?] to Transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong -- may be worse than my "change" suggestion, but not significantly so. And dropping "sovereignty" was quite bad, so good that it's back, even tho not clearly agreed upon on this talk page.
  --Jerzy•t 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  

Wikipedia should be descriptive of actual facts. The fact regarding the subject matter of this article was that the sovereignty over Hong Kong was exercised by the United Kingdom. The UK relinquished the sovereignty over Hong Kong at 23:59:59, June 30, 1997, as promised in 1984; and the PRC, acting as successor to the Ch'ing Dynasty, resumed exercising sovereignty over Hong Kong at 00:00:00, July 1, 1997. Whether or not the legitimacy of British sovereignty over Hong Kong before 1997 was recognised by the PRC is irrelevant in determining the page title.
— Instantnood 23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article should be the Resumption of Chinese Sovereignty Over Hong Kong. First and foremost, these words are clearly stated in the Joint Declaration. Secondly, it was a resumption and not simply a transfer. A transfer has the meaning that someone that was mine is now yours if I transfer it to you. There is no implication that you had it before. Resumption means continuation and more appropriately fits what happened to Hong Kong in 1997. The title should be changed.
--DietEvil (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Insisting in that fashion that highlighting a continuation and "having [had] it before" means communicating that the the article is about the least encyclopedic aspect of the change: a legal distinction that the CCP would like our readers to swallow even tho it is a matter of theory and face that in itself matters only to the CCP and a Taiwan faction, and can be stated in a simple sentence (but requires either two, or a compound sentence, if NPoV is to be maintained). Everyone who was there when Hong Kong passed to British control is dead, whether they "had" it or not. The dynasty that signed off on it is no longer of any political significance, even if their descendants can be identified. Continuity is a legal fiction, not much more significant than the difference between defense and defence, but the article is about changes that are far more momentous, and far more complex.
  --Jerzy•t 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  

• The effort to get the perfectly NPoV or objectively accurate term in few enuf words to be effective as the title is hopeless. "Sovereignty" is ambiguous enuf (embracing de facto control, international recognition of control, lack of challenge thru the international court system against the exercise of most of the powers of sovereignty) that only language in the article can resolve the objective ambiguity.
  And BTW, if legality is your standard, see the compelling argument in Henry V that Elizabeth II, in addition to being Duke of Normandy, is queen regnant of France -- the deposing of Louis XVI and XVII being irrelevant acts against usurpers of the crown, and the abdications of Napoleon I and III acts of usurpers.
  --Jerzy•t 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  

Oops... The title of this article has been renamed as "Hong Kong Return" in zh-wiki...

The title of this article in Chinese Wikipedia was "Transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong " (香港主權移交) in the past, but they have changed it to "Hong Kong Return" (香港回歸) recently. Does Chinese Wikipedia violate WP:NPOV?
--203.218.38.115 (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Many people do say 香港回歸, therefore it is at least real.
Benjwong (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The current title of this article is not specific. For instance, Japanese occupation of Hong Kong can also be considered as "Transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong", a transfer from Britain to Japan.
--Quest for Truth (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It isn't really a 'return' or 'resumption' of sovereignty, because the PRC are an illegitimate rebel government and the ROC are technically the proper government of China, but since the PRC were given the chair of the UNSC who knows? Apparently the communists think themselves the successors to the Qing Dynasty, and although Mao was a syphilitic nutcase who enjoyed deflowering virgins in the tradition of Qing Emperors, Mao's was never a legal government. Still, what do the treaties say?
77.99.7.242 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• The admittedly irrelevant reference to Mao's unverifiable personal life is a disgraceful affront to WP's standards of discourse.
  --Jerzy•t 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  

Sovereignty of ... vs. sovereignty over ...

In secn "Oops... ...", User:Instantnood used the construction "sovereignty over Hong Kong [emphasis added by Jerzy]", and User:DietEvil attributed a similar construction to the Joint Declaration. (DE is, BTW, wrong in saying we are bound by that document (potentially the worst of PoV, since it surely embodies the explicitly negotiated compromise between the self-interests of the two principals, to the neglect where necessary of all other interests that exist in the world, not least those entailing recognizability of the truth. If that's not clear, then know that a crucial duty of diplomats is to lie.)
What the accompanying article is about is not the sovereignty of Hong Kong -- you can probably use "Hong Kong" in a sense where the sovereignty of Hong Kong includes Kowloon and the New Territories -- but about who has sovereignty over Hong Kong: it was under the sovereignty of the UK, and is now under the sovereignty of the PRC.
A mistranslation from Chinese is possible, American and British English differences does not hint of a difference, and this talk page clearly shows the correct usage has had zero attention, so i am going forward without waiting for further discussion. There are about a dozen and a half Rdrs, which i will bypass, but reversing them (if my fix is rejected is even easier than my own task.
--Jerzy•t 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Handover

Isn't "Handover" the most common name for this event? As in, "Handover of Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong's Handover"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)j

of course it is, when the drug dealer/robber speaks of having to return his ill gotten treasures to their rightful owner, you bet he's going to play some word game in order to cover up his ugly past and also as a last spite to the victim. He will say it's a "handover", not a "return" or "reunification". He will pretend he's the rightful owner along, he's just being magnanimous giving to someone else, like handing over a 2nd car to a cousin or a charity.

Perhaps you had better read how Hong Kong became a British territory in the first place. Also when you take a car and give it a huge upgrade to help make it one of the best in the area some would be glad. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop looking at the world through your European-centric glasses. And funnily enough, Hong Kong has seen the biggest waves of migration during the years of British imperialist rule, resulting in major economic downturn. Isn't it funny how Hong Kong becomes the economic centre of Asia immediately after it is returned to China? It says something about the British doesn't it? A robbery is a robbery is a robbery. There can be no denying that Hong Kong was given to the British as they terrorised the whole of China in the Opium Wars and metaphorically held a gun to every Chinese in the world. 203.213.47.206 (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Referendum?

How come the British did not hold a referendum to let the people of Hong Kong choose their own future? They could have provided 2 simple choices: remain a British colony or become part of the People's Republic of China.

Why wasent this done? Was it ever even discussed? Cfagan1987 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Because Chinese government at the time of 1984 discussion between Britain and China, refused to discuss about holding a referendum in Hong Kong saying Hong Kong is legally recognized in China as Chinese terrority which was "stolen" by the British and would never change.

Mainland china was already charging HK something like 200X the water fee of what singapore charged malaysia for water. From a resource standpoint, the negotiators were in trouble from the start. Hence the very weak 1984 meeting. Benjwong (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The British had stolen Hong Kong from China in the Opium Wars, where they forced the Chinese to buy and consume Opium so that they could make money. The British had no way of taking the moral high ground with their typical inhumane history of imperialism. In a more non-biased way, the British negotiators simply didn't have any way of saying they were right, and China was wrong. Even suggesting a referendum probably would have lead to China taking it by force anyway... Thank God for China, or else I'd still be languishing under the boots of the British. 203.213.42.102 (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that why you live in Australia, then? -- 99.7.156.121 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, how come the British did not hold one single referendum in the 150-year colonial history of Hong Kong to let the people choose a governor? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not even Australia or Canada elects their governor and they're fully sovereign states. bit of a reach --MichiganCharms (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Even MORE importantly, why are the people of Hong Kong STILL not allowed full elections, free from external meddling, to choose their own leaders? Seems to me like the people are still 'languishing under boots', its just the wearers that have changed. But then I expect its really MORALLY OK to deny basic human rights to your OWN people as this is not a display imperialism, from whence all the worlds evils seem to spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.61.60 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you met Red China? 2A00:23C8:8F8A:B700:CD34:41A4:85A8:AF52 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

War preparations

• Michael Sheridan, 25 June 2007, China plotted Hong Kong invasion, The Australian

Though this is obviously old news, currently the article makes no mention of official disclosures of war preparations by the PRC in the case the negotiations failed. How would this be properly integrated into the article? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Should European Union roadway standards be replaced with Vienna Convention?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals

Because all signs in the EU follow the Vienna convention, the EU standard is to implement the Vienna convention. Swissnetizen (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The watershed of the British Empire

I'm no expert on the subject, but is there any source to characterize it as "the watershed of the British Empire" in the lede? I realize that Prince Charles and many other sources regard it as the "end" of the British Empire, but for it to be characterized as "the" watershed ("critical point marking a change in course or development") seems a bit off. When I think of a singular watershed moment for the BE, I tend to think of the Suez Crisis, or the Indian independence movement, or the 50s-60s Decolonization of Africa. I guess my thinking is that "watershed" is usually used to mean "turning point," when really this is more of a terminus. It's not the turning point for the British Empire, it's the end of it (at least according to several sources). So do we call it "a" watershed instead of "the" watershed, or maybe something else? Furthermore, this description at the end of the lede doesn't appear to be described in the rest of the article, which is another issue. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a consensus to move the title of this article as proposed. The question of what the opening sentence of the article says can be resolved through normal editing, or continued discussion on this talk page in sections below, as appropriate.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong → Handover of Hong Kong – "Handover of Hong Kong" (or simply "the Handover") is arguably the most WP:COMMONNAME in English for this event. It's not even close. Not by a long shot. Not even those with a pro-Chinese view would deny that. I was looking at the discussions and was surprised to see little, if any, policy-based justifications (although there was a bunch of nationalist sabre-rattling sprinkled throughout). It seems the current title was chosen (by either a tacit acceptance or simply unchallenged reasoning) to try and sound as neutral as possible. It's a good-faith move but misguided policy-wise. The section on non-neutral but common names says titles are allowed to have "non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun [for an event] ... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Plus someone said it's titled "Hong Kong Return" in the Chinese wiki. If all interwikis have the same policy on common names in their respective languages, then it would be correct, as the Handover should likewise be in English.

(On a side note, if we really want proper technical legal terminology, the correct title would be "Retrocession of Hong Kong". See for example "Different Roads to Home: the retrocession of Hong Kong and Macau to Chinese sovereignty" by Ming K. Chan (2003) in the Journal of Contemporary China. But that's not the proposal and it still wouldn't supersede the common name policy). Spellcast (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The first principle of article naming is common use/understanding. If that be the measure here, then I agree that "Handover of Hong Kong" is vastly superior to "Transfer of Sovereignty over Hong Kong"; the latter is also a mouthful, which is to be avoided in article titles, too. On the other hand, I do not agree with the basis of the objection by Spellcast, i.e. that the present article title reflects bias. The title is a plain fact statement of the precise legal process as it relates to Hong Kong Island and Kowloon: China ceded its sovereignty to Britain in 1842 and Britain handed back that sovereignty in 1997. The only weakness in the title is that it might be misunderstood to encompass the natural expiry of the lease on the New Territories which occurred on the same date as the transfer of sovereignty over the island and Kowloon; the transfer was not in relation to the New Territories portion of what is (and was then) known as "Hong Kong". The distinction is somewhat blurred in the article text now (and I may improve that). "Handover" avoids the misunderstanding. So, in summary, I support the move. sirlanz 00:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

If a move is made, I suggest it be made to Hong Kong Handover rather than Handover of Hong Kong as the former will appear in autocomplete entries for Hong Kong, facilitating easier location by searchers. sirlanz 15:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Au contraire, I'm saying the current title has a lack of bias. But if it's overwhelmingly known by a better name, even if non-neutral, we go with that. But yeah semantics aside, the Handover obviously refers to both the retrocession of HK island and Kowloon, and the NT lease expiry. Both titles you mentioned are fine, but I'll support Hong Kong Handover. Either one easily beats the current mouthful of a title. The Alaska Purchase, Louisiana Purchase, and Mexican Cession also lack prepositions. Spellcast (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus having been reached (unanimous in this case), I have attempted move but the existing redirect has defeated me and I have requested assistance for a technical move. sirlanz 00:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, this is not how consensus is reached... though, whatever this discussion was started on 21 August, so it will stay open until 28 August from then an uninvolved editor will close it. All RMs are tracked and closed or relisted when it is appropriate. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support; common name, conciseness, etc. Red Slash 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, although retrocession would be okay. "Handover" sounds too colloquial/journalistic. It's a descriptive title, so usage is almost irrelevant. 216.8.143.171 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Of course, any term that doesn't use the "technically correct" or "proper legal parlance" is by definition going to be more colloquial. Still doesn't override policy on common name titles. Spellcast (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Given the relatively little engagement, I feel obliged to say other ways this complies with policy. It also meets all the WP:Naming criteria. Recognizability? Yes easily as it's the most common name. Naturalness? Yes. No-one is typing the full long title when searching for this. Precision? Yes. Conciseness? Yes. Consistency? Yes. There's literally no other article on Wikipedia (besides Macau) titled "Transfer of sovereignty..." for territorial cessions. Spellcast (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  So what you are saying is that there are currently two articles at "Transfer of sovereignty..." and none at "Handover of...", right? So far as I can tell there has never been any article titled "Handover of ..." for a territorial cession. I do not believe "handover" is used the way this move would imply, i.e., as some sort of common name or term of art. Better to stick with a clearer descriptive title (or, better, retrocession). 216.8.143.171 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Those articles are titled that way because it followed the common name principle first and foremost. Yes there's no article using "Handover" in the title because it just so happens that their popular names luckily corresponds to a simple formal term (e.g. "cession", "purchase"). But if the popular name doesn't correspond to a simple formal term, you don't then disregard WP:Commonname and WP:Naming criteria for the sake of wanting the latter. Spellcast (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME and because there isn't really any meaningful reasoning for the current title to be kept. Impru20^talk 21:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not support, mainly because you've mistaken the reason why the original title was used in the first place. "The Transfer of Sovereignty" was used in government records and Legislative Council of Hong Kong and foreign relations at the time of the event, I do support the using "catchy" common name as per WP:COMMONNAME, but it's also important to point out the name used in official publications at the time of the event, Hong Kong Year Book [1] (a Hong Kong government annual reports on facts of HK ); Legislative Council of Hong Kong record; and even Australian parliament reports Inquiry: Hong Kong: The Transfer of Sovereignty referenced it as such. Now, since I do support common names, Privy Council of the United Kingdom as an excellent example, common name as the title, and official name included at the beginning of the lead. Therefore, I don't mind to support the change to Handover if we can agree to include the name used by government and official record at the time of the event - "Transfer of Sovereignty of Hong Kong, " at the beginning of the lead. But I agree with the editor somewhere above, Handover sounds too colloquial/journalistic, and not encyclopaedic enough. so if we can't agree on the lead, we should just keep the original for the time being. International Common Editor (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  So it's not the title you have a problem with but rather the lead, which can be dealt with separately. In other words, it's a conditional support whereby you support the move as long as the the start of the lead mentions the "transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong". I'm open to that, but the article kind of already does that though. I understand your comparison of the "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" (common name and title) to "Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council" (official name), but it's not quite the same analogy. I think it's important not to confuse or conflate a title (whether it be an official one or popular one) with a description. Those government sources you gave are the latter (i.e. it's describing a formal process to take place - a transfer of sovereignty - not a name). I know semantics can be annoying but I hope that makes sense. For a more accurate analogy, take say the Watergate scandal. It's titled under the popular name, not something formal or official sounding like "Corruption in the Nixon administration" because it's overwhelmingly known by the former. Spellcast (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional support as per WP:COMMONNAME and because it looks like nobody Googles this event in English using "transfer of sovereignty" in the search term. This is conditional because like the editor above, I'd also want the lead to start with "transfer of sovereignty", which is what the Chinese version of this article also does. Horserice (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  I'm open to that. Just need to get the title right first before getting the semantics right on the lead. Although the Chinese wiki starts with "The transfer of sovereignty...", there would be nothing wrong with them starting it with "The Return of Hong Kong..." if it's the most common term in Chinese just like the current version of this article begins with "The Handover of Hong Kong..." in English. There's no obligation that the same subject on different interwikis treat the title the same way, especially if the popular names differ. Spellcast (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Whew I'm surprised the RM has been up for 2 weeks. To sum up, we have 4 supports (including myself), 1 oppose (btw "Retrocession of Hong Kong" was my close second choice, but it's kind of hard to disregard what's arguably the common name), and 2 conditional supports, both of whom agree that the proposed title is indeed the common name, but also add the caveat that the lead begins with "The transfer of sovereignty...". The article has this in the first sentence, just not at the very start. Again, I'm open to this and if anyone wants to change it so it's the opening term, feel free to do so. But I just think it's redundant because it's not unusual for official or formal events to be known by a more informal name that's more common or popular. Oh and although the original proposal was Handover of Hong Kong, I'll support Hong Kong Handover. Pretty sure this lack of preposition isn't an issue. Spellcast (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Transfer OF sovereignty

Anybody else see a little contradiction in there? If "sovereignty" is essentially "independence" then how is "sovereignty "transferred"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an exchange of territory between sovereign entities. Sovereignty over Hong Kong, not of Hong Kong. HK was not sovereign, but the UK and China were. HK belonged to the one, then it belonged to the other after the transfer. That is all. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've modified the first paragraph. The "sovereignty transferred" misnomer was actually a new invention in the 2000s. The kids dug up the history and had missing context, so they wrote articles in an extraneously formal tone. All official British documents called it "handover". - Kiyokoakiyama (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan

Did Taiwan aka Republic of China want Return to it?--Kaiyr (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Handover of Hong Kong

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Handover of Hong Kong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed and removed your lists to make this page easier to read.

@AnomieBOT

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Handover of Hong Kong to Republic of China

Was there ever an idea to handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the Republic of China (ROC)? Eurohunter (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)