Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Military of Hong Kong

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

Merge proposal

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Huaiwei proposed to merge Military of Hong Kong and PLA Hong Kong Garrison [1] [2]. The two articles have different focuses and aspects. The former article is about miliary of Hong Kong in general, with facts and figures to allow cross-country comparison. The latter article is specifically about the PLA garrison in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 08:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "military of Hong Kong", when it is basically a PLA garrison. The information for one applies to the other. "Corss-country" comparison is a dangerous term to use, when we know the Chinese takes care of military operations in the two SARS. Would it make sense to compare the military in HK and China? Or HK with with any other independent country when the PLA can effectively simply shift its entire military focus onto HK should the later come under military attack? Last but not least, why is this page/category in existance when the military of the PRC applies directly to the entirety of the PRC? If this latest concern is disputed, then what rational is there in trying to differentiate between HK and the rest of China in "economic concerns"?--Huaiwei 09:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting argument. How would it be possible for the PRC to shift its entire military focus onto Hong Kong? :-)
Please note there are articles on military topics of many sovereign States and dependent territories, as long as they're covered by the WikiProject for countries. On the meantime please don't, no matter intentional or not, confuse or equate SARs and SARS. — Instantnood 11:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I do wonder if you have any background in the military, although basic common sense wont have you asking me such a strange question. Should a threat be pinpointed in any part of a country, it has the legal means to move military focus on that area. If Zimbabwe decides to attack HK tomorrow, Beijing can just fire missles from any part of the PRC, and not just from within HK. Can the same thing be said if HK's military concerns are not that of Beijing's? No. So how accurate is it for someone to compare the "military of HK" with any other independent state, when in a real wartime situation, the adversary is more likely to be facing the military of the PRC and not just the PLA garrison in HK? No I seriously do not think you need to go to boot camp to realise this, right?--Huaiwei 16:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But Huaiwei, the article doesn't compare the HK garrison with any other (real) countries. Almost all of the "data" says N/A, Not applicable. I could go either way on whether this article should exist or not, it's purpose seems to be to proclaim, repeatedly, to an uninformed persion who went looking that HK is not independent militarily. That's a legit purpose. That purpose could also be served in a merge and redirect. SchmuckyTheCat 20:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I was addressing Instantnood's commentary above that this page is useful for "cross-country comparison". Rather amusing to me, to be honest.--Huaiwei 20:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's amusing to you largely because your own definition of "country" overlaps with "sovereign States", which is not the same as in common usage or on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 20:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
What amuses me is not how a country is defined. Its how you could compare the "military" of a country's part with the whole of another. Good luck to you if you are a military commander. Meanwhile, the over-welmingly popular definition of the word "country" is a soverign state despite its technical inaccuracies, and not the other way round that you claim.--Huaiwei 20:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've never suggested to compare the military of the PRC to that of Hong Kong. Cross-country comparison can be a whatever country, no matter a sovereign State or not, to another. — Instantnood 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
So, 'Nood, are you proclaiming HK is a country since you're objecting to the implication that HK is not a country? SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you are aware of the definition of "country" in common usage, and the list of countries on Wikipedia. Meanwhile I have never proclaimed Hong Kong as a sovereign State. — Instantnood 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
(response to Huaiwei's comment at 16:12, July 11) I know military service is compulsory in your home country :-D. Do you really think the PRC would actually shift its entire military focus onto Hong Kong of Hong Kong is under attack? — Instantnood 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The military of Hong Kong does not exist. Therefore, the article should not exist. However, there is a Military in Hong Kong and that is synonymous with the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. There's no need to seperate the fictional "Military of Hong Kong" from the "PLA Hong Kong Garrison". There are no other militaries in Hong Kong. For comparison, "Military of Israel" redirects to "Israel Defense Forces" and "Military of the United Kingdom" redirects to "British Armed Forces". Other articles on non-existent militaries, such as the Military of Wake Island, have already been deleted and redirected...--Jiang 13:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jiang. I noticed some countries have only a military article (e.g. Military of New Zealand) and some have only an article on the armed force (e.g. Canadian Armed Forces, Australian Defence Force) while some have both (e.g. Military of Singapore and Singapore Armed Forces). Is there any guidelines or WikiProject standardising how these articles should be organised? — Instantnood 14:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
The wikiproject is silent on this issue. Convention, as far as I am aware of it, calls for a single article with a redirect to the most common term for the armed forces. This means if "Armed Forces" is a more common term, we use it instead of "Military". (Military of Canada is a redirect.) The Singapore example is the first I've seen and I really think those two articles should be merged. Looking at both, I don't see how theyre designed to cover different scopes. The "Military of Singapore" article even begins with "The Singapore Armed Forces"! --Jiang 15:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see.. I won't object merging if it is a convention to have single articles. The military history of Hong Kong can be a separate article in that case. — Instantnood 16:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, this article does a decent job of explaining to the reader that Hong Kong doesn't have a military of it's own. That needs explaining if the reader was searching for information about Hong Kong's military. If this becomes a redirect to the PLA garrison, that point of fact needs to be explicit. SchmuckyTheCat 18:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Some countries, even sovereign States, do not have military of their own, but there are military articles telling what forces are stationed there, and/or other information about their military aspects (e.g. military of Greenland, military of Aruba, military of Costa Rica, military of Kiribati, military of Iceland). If the two articles are merged the fact needs to be stated. — Instantnood 07:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have to point out that it is apparant the entire Military of foo series of articles started off by taking data from the CIA factbook. This was also the case for many other Foo of country/territory articles. It is therefore not surprising that Iceland or quasi-independent territories are getting their seperate entries. But is CIA a definitive source to rely on when justifying the subsequent existance of articles when they are reviewed and expanded on? I think not. Telling us that "Military of Greenland" exists does not mean it is equally justifiable to have "Military of Macau".--Huaiwei 16:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind telling if Costa Rica and Kiribati are quasi-independent territories according to your definition? Thanks. — Instantnood 20:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
No they are independent states like Iceland. Do I have to mention them all least you think they fall into the later category? Seriously, are you trying to be intentionally irritable?--Huaiwei 20:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just be careful to avoid anything that might look confusing. — Instantnood 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I guess it would be nice to continue the discussion here at the talk page of the military WikiProject (or equivalent). The matter is not only Hong Kong-related, but also related to countries which are not sovereign states, and sovereign states with no military force. — Instantnood 20:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They apparently aren't synonymous. Military of this territory includes those paramilitary units of the HKPF, Marine Police, HKFS, GFS, to name a few. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive. Matthew hk (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[3] 219.76.24.207 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the redirect

[edit]
No consensus. No substantial discussion, excluding disruptive IPs. Redirect is sufficient to remain until consensus is reached. (Non-admin closure) Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I thought the redirect was a better option than nominating it for deletion at WP:AfD where it will probably end in a redirect anyway. The cited sources are not suitable for creating a standalone article, or spin-off of the section Chinese People's Liberation Army Forces Hong Kong Building#People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong. We also have Hong Kong Military Service Corps. What is needed most are better sources per WP:GNG and WP:PAGEDECIDE. I also just read NYTimes article which refers to it as "People’s Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong", so a page move to a new name might be another option. Let's discuss. Atsme 💬 📧 20:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These articles don't talk about the same thing (if you are able to read). 218.189.215.212 (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
218.189.215.212 you may want to take a look at Military of Iceland. They haven't got a standing armed force of their own, but they got other organisations which assume part of the duties of military armed forces elsewhere. For example, its coastguard once entered into what's characterised as the "Cod War". Likewise Costa Rica got the Public Force of Costa Rica. 210.0.147.24 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not the same thing. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]
Atsme please stop removing the inter-wiki link. Stop now. 210.0.147.24 (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP, can you even tell us what you're trying to accomplish with the interlanguage link? You realize there is an entire list of links to the article in other languages at the bottom of the left of the page? —valereee (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably there's one corresponding article in another language of the article that Atsme has just killed and turned into a redirect. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]
IP, yes, but there are already links in the article to the article in other languages -- they're in the left-hand menu. How does adding it into the article add anything? —valereee (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate? (That was the only one which appeared wasn't it.[4]) 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]
Hello? "[A]n entire list of links"? There's only one and only one link and we are talking about that one link. 210.0.147.24 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme please restore the article before you propose to turn it into a redirect. State clearly your rationale. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]

It is not my responsibility to argue my case because the onus is on you. I have already explained why those two subsections are noncompliant with WP:PAG. I will not respond beyond suggesting (yet, again) that you read the relative policies/guidelines and start looking for reliable sources that support your position and that will meet the qualifications for making those subsections into stand alone lists/articles per WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Once you get that done, you are in a better position to present a convincing debate/argument/reason for making them separate lists. It's all about gaining consensus from the community in support of 2 separate lists. Atsme 💬 📧 16:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Undo the state-sponsored disruptive edits. 61.244.195.230 (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the disruptive edits made by Atsme before we discuss anything - if and only if something as simple and as common sense as such isnt speediable and still requires lengthy discussions like this. 210.6.10.130 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look to cases like Military of Iceland, Military of Greenland, Military of Åland or Military of Bermuda, and so on, and you will be able to tell the answer would be obvious. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the Falkland Islands too. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And Military of Aruba too. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do they recruit from among the inhabitants of these territories? The British forces did in Hong Kong. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]
That would be interesting to find out and is definitely encyclopaedic. But that's irrelevant to whether this article should be redirected. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per commentss and votes above. This is usual for dependent territories aka. dependencies. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore per above. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. This is not the same topic as the article on the PLA garrison in the territory，the redirect destination the proposer has pointed this article to with no discussion or consensus. The PLA garrison do not raise any of their personnel in Hong Kong, not even in supporting roles. Some of the functions normally assumed by the armed forces in most other countries are the duties of other organisations controlled by the administration of this territory themselves, such as the Fire Services and the Government Flying Service, as well as bomb disposal and border patrol. These functions were specifically transferred from the British forces in the late 1980s or early 1990s in preparation for the handover of sovereignty over the territory. User:Atsme should be held responsible for her editing style and disruptive behaviour, and User:Valereee for their staunch support of User:Atsme regardless of her disruptions with their administrators rights and powers. 219.76.18.77 (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]

Nice. And I'd happened to have come across this from the Post Magazine of the SCMP, a newspaper founded in 1903 in the territory: "Now operating from its depot on Mount Butler Road, the EOD unit was established in 1972, and since then has dealt with all UXO found on land, except those on military property, which were handled by the British Army before the handover. Britain’s Royal Navy dealt with UXO found at sea until the early 1990s, when the EOD bureau took on responsibility for those, too." [5] Some other sources have suggested that before the EOD Bureau was founded in 1972 there was a ballistics division nominally in the RHKPF but staffed by British army officers on a part-time basis. 218.189.215.212 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way the SDU was still trained by the SAS and the SBS until relatively recently. 218.189.215.212 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 58.177.160.150 and 220.246.55.231. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]

Comment: Thanks. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert. Do not redirect. 223.197.170.231 (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They do not overlap as elaborated by others above. The articles for some other countries are good references. 210.0.147.120 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A typical example of a non-armed dependency but having some armed agencies. 219.76.15.6 (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well said. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Do not redirect. The PLA garrison in the territory certainly isn't of the territory given it doesn't raise any personnel locally. All members are posted from across the border. 116.49.190.74 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the article, per above, especially 219.76.18.77. Probe Atsme's and Valereee's disruptive behaviour per 219.76.24.202, 210.6.10.130 and 219.76.18.77. 203.186.21.162 (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore pending consensus. The recent redirect by Atsme was not discussed. Even worse was that she did not merge any material to the target article. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Look at all the gangpuppet IPs!" SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the article and do away with the redirect. Please refer to Tjhe Kwet Koe v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, [1997] FCA 912, on 8 Sept 1997, by the Federal Court of Australia; and the many lists of country codes on Wikipedia, such as ISO 3166, ITU's E.164 and Maritime ID, IOC, FIFA, LOC Marc, Nato, UNDP, WMO, ICAO. The answer is clear and hardly debatable. Those who still think they want to argue against the established practice gotta review their familiarity with Wikipedia and global affairs as Wikipedian editors. 218.102.122.155 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]

  • Note to admin and other thread closer. The turning the article into redirect was a bold move as i can't saw any documented discussion thread, (except the 2005 one (Special:Diff/18819701) . Either the 2011 one (Special:Diff/419022010) or 2019 one (Special:Diff/914754697). In which 2005 and 2011 versions are different . However at the same time ip vote stacking and at least 3 ip ranges were blocked by admin for accused ip hopping, plus other ip range as meat due to suspected off site canvassing, just made this thread not a discussion but train wreck. This talk page is now semi-protected so that i can't ask ip what is the scope of the article they want to build? Military of local Hongkong people? Or covers both PLA and British army? If the latter it may be less WP:overlap with existing articles. But if neither it just seems ip want to secure a parallel articles to write a version that fit their POV pushing. Matthew hk (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[6] 219.76.24.207 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protected

[edit]

Restoring the page to [7] pending outcome of the discussion above on whether this page should be kept, emptied and redirected, or merged and redirected. It shouldn't have been emptied until there's clear consensus to do so, even if that indeed going to exist. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:: This is a request to undo the alterations made with no discussion nor consensus. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.[reply]

 Not done: Closing edit request from sockpuppet user. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[8] 219.76.24.207 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_of_Hong_Kong&oldid=1210740114"