Jump to content

Talk:Hongkongers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

more citations needed here (!)

Han Chinese

[edit]

We have to be careful not to include every single known Han Chinese names in the section. So i have remove some of the redundant ones. --Da Vynci (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone change this or I will: Han chinese are not the only people who refer to themselves as 香港人, in 廣東話 or in english. I was born in Hong Kong, my Father was born in Hong Kong, his Father... etc. 4th generation, I speak Cantonese... but I'm white. So what? I can't call myself Hong Kong people? Why? 我唔係外國人。我香港出世。千祈唔好叫我外國人。 Seriously, this is offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.95.190.10 (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


We're talking about Hong Kong people as a general here, which 98% of them are of Cantonese background. A very few minority couldn't make a change to view Hong Kong people as simply 'residents' regardless of their ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.77.88 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me, but of course it DOES NOT matter what you look like. If you speak Cantonese, and you have lived in Hong Kong for some length of time (esp. if one was born here and who's family is from here) you can refer to yourself as 香港人, and to hell what anyone thinks about it. That is our privilege as people who live in a free city. Why would that NOT be the case?? I'll give you three days to come up with something else or I'm changing it myself. As it is this article is HEAVILY ethnocentric and may even be racist/大漢族主義/ whatever you want to call it... it's wrong.港燦 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a third-generation Hong Konger and I'm Cantonese, but I've grew up with the understanding that not all Hong Kongers are Hans, we also have a lot of Indians, Filipas, English, French, Eurasians, and some blacks. The current wave of Han-Chinese makes me sad, because from what I've learn of Chinese history, multiculturalism has always been around. Nationally I'm Canadian, but culturally I consider myself a mix of Canadian and Hong Kong, which is half Chinese half British. - Georgia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.59.51 (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source which indicates that most Hongkongers are Han people by ethnicity. 125.59.140.243 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.59.140.243 (talk) [reply]

Western Naming Convention

[edit]

No westerner has ever adopted a Chinese name.

Someone may be a Chan, but he is not a "Jackie" (Jackie==Jacqueline, a woman's name). Someone may be a Liu, but she is not a "Lucy" nor an "Alexis". Someone may be a Wie, but she is not a "Michelle". In the case of Michael Jackson: Was neither a "Jackson" nor a "Michael". Likewise, there is no such person as a "Winston Tan", a "John So", "John Woo" or a "Helen Gu" which all sound devastating to one's ears. Perhaps, the names don't serve any purpose other then adapting oneself to a foreign culture in a foreign country. Only perhaps!... Any reason for using such names in one's own country where adapting to a foreign culture is not an issue? Putting it frankly, those that show no self-respect, that reject their own culture & their own names, deserve to be despised, no matter where they are living, how well they speak a foreign western language or how good-looking they may appear, or how successful they may be in life. List of shame in public eyes worldwide: The names shown on the mainpage are subjects for mocking by westerners.

There is so much to be proud about China's civilization & culture, but face it, over the millennia of history China has always been a kind of United States of China, a mixture of diffrent peoples and languages under a same cultural hemisphere, a result of endless Chinese conquest in the past. China still is a kind of United States today. And those assimilated versions of Chinese don't do China proud by giving themselves to be what they aren't. Conquerors, be careful in selecting your subjects for conquest, because maybe they don't deserve to carry your identity, once conquered. It is too late now to give China such an advise, but do stop the western naming disease!

A well meant advise for the Cantonese --- Cantonese Independence: If they keep calling themselves "Tony" or "Peter", they are NOT going to make it. Same advise for the Taiwanese! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.107.4 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT!!?....Be careful with the so called "Cantonese Independence". We are proud to be Chinese, not like Taiwanese k? --LLTimes (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

add honger

[edit]

maybe we could add honger to the list, as it seems to be in more usage than hongkongese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.22.73 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Kong-sang/陳港生, Fong Si-lung/房仕龍 ("Jackie Chan")

[edit]

I understand that this man, his views (Jackie's Tweets, Tweets controversy) and his (Western) persona are upsetting and controversial to some people. Wikipedia, however, is an online encyclopedia, three of its main principles being verifiability, neutral point of view and civility. The facts are this: he was born in Hong Kong/香港, his business interests (Chan Charities, Chan IMDb Bio, Chan Fan Mail addresses) are there and a residence as well.
Whether his image and name are to be included in the Hong Kong people infobox should not be decided by an ongoing series of edits & reverts but instead achieved by group consensus. Shearonink (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Notable people representing Hong Kong

[edit]

I've updated the infobox with a mosaic of notable Hong Kong Chinese. I felt the infobox was way too over representative of Hong Kong's film industry, which (while important) hardly stands for the entirety of Hong Kong. The new image is also much cleaner than the previous mess of pictures. The following are rationales for the inclusion of each picture, and what they represent:

So, any thoughts? I was ambivalent on whether it was better to keep Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee, since both represent the martial arts films genre in Hong Kong, but ultimately Bruce Lee won out. --Hongkongresident (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody likes Bruce Lee, but what about Jackie Chan? He was born there, worked and still works there, has extensive business and charitable interests there, has a home there... Shearonink (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like Jackie Chan too, but one of the goals of the image is to represent every part of life and culture in Hong Kong. Bruce Lee is already in the picture representing martial arts films, so having Jackie Chan in too is redundant. It's the same reason why Jimmy Wang, Jet Li, David Chiang (due to the inclusion of Bruce Lee); Run Run Shaw, Li Ka-Shing (due to the inclusion of Runme Shaw); John Woo, Ringo Lam (due to the inclusion of Chow Yun-fat); Roman Tam, Teresa Teng, Alan Tam (due to the inclusion of Leslie Cheung); and Andy Lau, Sammi Cheung (due to the inclusion of Faye Wong) were all left out. They are all notable people, but it should be one person representing one field or focal point.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point and agree that one person should represent a particular field of endeavour (and also that the Infobox was getting unwieldy), but my question really was... why not include Chan Kong-sang/陳港生, Fong Si-lung/房仕龍 ("Jackie Chan") instead of Bruce Lee? Shearonink (talk)
I'll admit, you've got me there. I guess I went with Bruce Lee because he's considered more of a pioneer. On the other hand, Chan sells out more seats than anyone in Asia...--Hongkongresident (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the title of this article offensive

[edit]

"Hong Kong people" is made up with "Hong Kong" (noun) + "people" (noun). In grammatic structure, it is exactly the same to the term "Chinaman". If we are referring to the people of Hong Kong, we may use Norman genitive (the people of Hong Kong) or Saxon genitive (the Hong Kong's people). Joining up two nouns together makes it barbaric and offensive. --Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)— Joshua.yathin.yu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have to concur. This article is pretty awkwardly named. While Chinaman has become offensive because of usage, it at least sort of followed the pattern of Englishman, Frenchman, or Cornishman. But it's entirely outside of English convention to describe a nationality like this. We don't have "Korea people", or "Taiwan people", even if we have to make up an English sounding demonym like Korean or Taiwanese. Instinctively, I'd probably say Hong Kongese, but I've seen Hong Konger(s) used a lot too, I'd even use Hong Kongian instead of this title. Surely a better name can be decided for the English language article, perhaps drawing on usage in notable sources.--108.111.186.172 (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw a BBC report on Hong Kong elections. "Hong Kong people" was conscientiously used throughout.--211.120.232.228 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it occurred that Hongkonger and Hong Kongese are officially in the dictionary, I suppose this page should be moved. I don't like these terms while I prefer to use Hongkongian to indicate a Latin influence (Hongkonger is very Germanic and Hong Kongese sounds tribal, if you will). Anyhow, they are better than this Hong Kong people. More on the note of Chinaman, all examples by Mister 108.111.186.172 were constructed by adjective + -man as in English + man, French + man, et cetera. This Hong Kong people and that Chinaman were both constructed by the upright form of the region, instead of using Hongkongishman or Sinishman (I used the Latin Sina for construction, if you will).
- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hongkongman" would be offensive but "Hong Kong people" is not offensive at all; it is the translation literally from 香港人. Hong Kong government also uses "Hong Kong people" in its official documents: example. STSC (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title Hong Kong people is by far an away the most common name for this subject. While Hongkonger and Hong Kongese are in the dictionary, they are very infrequently used. Refer to this Google Ngram for data backing this up. Other suggestions given are neologisms and so should be discounted.
Assertions that Hong Kong people is offensive as it is similar to Chinaman are misfounded. There is no connection. Chinaman is an archaic and derogatory name for Chinese people. The word Chinaman has a history of use that brings with it negative connotations. Whereas Hong Kong people has not such historical baggage or connotations. Other words like Englishman and Scotsman are not considered offensive. It is quite normal in English to use a noun as an adjective where no adjective form of the word exists. In fact, proper nouns are almost always adjectival. Take for example the proper noun Coca-cola. It is often paired with another noun e.g. Coca-cola bottle or Coca-cola company. If I wanted to refer to the employees of Coca-cola I would not say Coca-colaians or Coca-colaer. It would be quite natural to talk of the Coca-cola people such as, "My shop had a visit from one of the Coca-cola people today." Note that we have articles such as Hainan people and Putian people for similar reasons. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These new replies bring the old discussion back to the old grounds. The purpose of reviving the topic here is based on the new addition of Hongkonger and Hong Kongese in the dictionaries. For some reasons, I believe the dictionaries are good enough authorities to claim these two terms more common than the current Hong Kong People. - Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)— Joshua.yathin.yu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You should open a user page and talk page first... anyway, per WP:COMMONNAME, dictionaries aren't necessarily followed for titles. I don't think it can offend anyone.Forbidden User (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Jim Thompson

[edit]

Does Jim Thompson have any Asian ancestry? If not, he should be removed from the list. Just because someone lives there doesn't make them ethnically Hongkongese. megamalx (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Hong Kong people' include long term residents in Hong Kong with any racial background. STSC (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are they including people of Hong Kong ancestry who live anywhere in the world, regardless of their actual relationship to Hong Kong? That seems sort of like a double standard. megamalx (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overseas Chinese with Hong Kong citizenship are also included. 'Hong Kong people' is not a legal definition, just a common name. STSC (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it should definitely include anyone identified as having a 'belonging' to Hong Kong, and not only people of a certain ethnicity. After all, most Hongkongers are decendents of immigrants (and within a very small number of generations as well). Might be a point to consider about including people of "Hong Kong ancestry" who are not themselves associated with Hong Kong. Could be an idea to move these people to a separate section within the article, e.g. "People with Hong Kong Ancestry".Kdm852 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hong Kong people. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hong Kong people. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putonghua as official language of Hong Kong

[edit]

Some Hong Kong people speak Putonghua, and Putonghua is also an official language of Hong Kong. In pre-80’s, there are a lot of popular Putonghua song and artists. Don’t discriminate the people who speak official language of Hong Kong, please203.160.71.190 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, mainstream Hong Kong parents are willing to let their children to learn Putonghua, rathan than English and even Cantonese Ally Tan’s post on Facebook. You could say those Hong Kong parents misinterprete the meaning of “兩文三語”, but this proved that Putonghua is a language of Hong Kong people. Most importantly, Ann Chiang and other Hong Kong officials use Putonghua to make declarations. 203.160.71.33 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please provide a reliable source to support the claim that Mandarin is an official language of Hong Kong. A Facebook post is not a reliable source. If we are including minority languages like Putonghua we should also be including Hakka, Hindi, Tagalog, etc. Hence it makes sense to limit the infobox to Cantonese and English. Citobun (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Putonghua is not minority language like Hakka, Hindi, Tagalog, etc, and per Bilingualism in Hong Kong, Putonghua proficiency is nearly 50%, which is pretty close up to English. Please don’t neglect this important fact, thank you. 203.160.71.162 (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't provided a source that Mandarin is an official language of Hong Kong. Anyway, I added other minority languages to the infobox. Citobun (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Native language

[edit]

It seems to me that it is wrong to specify Cantonese to be the native language of Hong Kong people, and I propose removing this from the infobox. While, of course, most Hongkongers grow up speaking Cantonese, it is a matter of fact that not all do. Anyone disagree? Doanri (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: removed it. Doanri (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a nationality?

[edit]

Revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chun-Li&type=revision&diff=887600798&oldid=887572109&diffmode=source if it isn't. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hong Kong people do not necessarily have Chinese nationality. Secondly, though I am not familiar with this fictional character, the article states that canonically she was born and grew up in an era when Hong Kong was not even part of China. Citobun (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 April 2019

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Hongkongers. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong people → Hongkonger – The reason I propose this term as the title is because I feel that "Hong Kong people" is simply not as expressive as "Hongkonger" in terms of a local identity. It is verified by the Oxford Dictionary and it is also a common name used by various publications such as South China Morning Post [1] and Time [2]. HKU also recorded high percentage in the city's acceptance in the term. [3]. But before performing any changes, I would like everyone's input as this is quite a controversial issue, I suppose? Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Partial support Having had a quick look at other similar articles for other nationalities, it seems the usual practice on WP is to use the pluralised demonym (eg Australians, Singaporeans, Canadians, etc). So I would suggest the article be moved to Hongkongers. I agree that this term seems to have achieved a level of common usage in recent years to overshadow other terms to become the most common and probably most "correct", insofar as there is one. I also agree that the recognition of this term by the OED demonstrates this point to a certain extent. Kdm852 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Hongkongers" is indeed a better idea. –Wefk423 (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Number of HKer

[edit]

It seems strange to only consider those who are born at HK to be HKer as many who aren't born at HK are also indisputably HKer. The number need to be revised.

Also, the acronym HKer should be added to the article. C933103 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but this would mean we would need some sort of definition, otherwise it is not clear how the count is done. And since the introduction already startes that there is no established definition, this seems like a difficult task. Perhaps we could list people born in HK, and people with HK PR in separate tables? Kdm852 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hong kong kong" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hong kong kong. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. AINH (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Hongkongese” replace “Hong Kong Cantonese” and “Cantonese”

[edit]

I tried to use the new word “Hongkongese” from Oxford English Dictionary to replace”Hong Kong Cantonese”, but someone keeps returning.

I’m confused about someone that do you really know the Hong Kong Cantonese?

Jyutping is an input method who created by The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong. It’s only popular in Hong Kong and never used in China, the people in Guangdong never know this.

We all know the Hongkongese (Hong Kong Cantonese) is so much different than Cantonese. Hongkongese has so many different words and still creating new words every year. The writing grammar, N sound and L sound, tunes, words, short and long vowels, etc.

When the Hongkonger use the Hongkongese grammar to write sentences or speak the new words, almost of the people in Guangdong absolutely don’t understand. But they also speak Cantonese, right? But why they don’t understand? That’s the differences!

Why Singaporean can call their language are Singnese or Singdarin, but the Hongkonger can not call their language as hongkongese? Please be fair.

Hongkongese (Hong Kong Cantonese) is a branch of Cantonese, but they are not the same one.

Someone, please accept the truth. Truthtelling2022 (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese or Hong Kong people

[edit]

Please replace all Hongkongers or Hongkongese by Hong Kong Chinese or Hong Kong people. 219.77.45.15 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

[edit]

134.35.70.248 (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bestagon ⬡ 18:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hongkongers&oldid=1247781754"