Talk:British Hong Kong

Date of establishment

So we have three options for what to put as the year of establishment:

• 1841 - when British forces formally took possession of Hong Kong at Possession Point on 26 January
• 1842 - when it was formally ceded to Britain in the Treaty of Nanking
• 1843 - when it was officially designated a "Crown colony"

We can probably rule out 1843 because at the very least, it was either a de facto or de jure colony before then. (Well technically, the treaty was ratified in 1843 but sources overwhelmingly don't use that year as the start of the colony compared to the other two). The other years can be valid depending on definition. But if we're going to be pedantic, I'd argue for 1841 for the same reason we put the start of Portuguese Macau as 1557, not 1887. Macau is known as the first and last European colony in China. That's because they use the start date of 1557, when Macau was leased to Portugal for the first 300+ years before being assigned to Portuguese administration in the 1887 Treaty of Peking. The infobox years show de facto establishment and operation, not sovereignty. The IP who first changed it to 1842 was making edits elsewhere saying Taiwan is part of China, so his POV became immediately clear as to why he did it. He based it not on any de facto British settlement but on the year China recognised it as British territory. He did the same thing to the Portuguese Macau article. But the establishment of a colony can predate a treaty.

When it comes to infobox dates, there's precedence elsewhere in using de facto years over de jure ones. World War I ended in 1918, not 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles. World War II ended in 1945, not 1951 with the Treaty of San Francisco. And the Chinese Civil War and Korean War ended in 1949/50 and 1953, respectively. No treaties were signed but we don't say those wars are currently ongoing. (Some media articles use the phrase "technically still at war", but for many other sources and most importantly, for Wikipedia purposes - where the date issue has been discussed extensively on those talk pages - they use the de facto years). This reinforces my point that treaties (or lack thereof) are not necessarily the main criteria for assigning dates. Spellcast (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree with you. Before Treaty of Nanking was signed in 1842, Hong Kong was a part of China. From 1841 to 1842, British military de facto occupied Hong Kong, but the sovereignty and administrative right of Hong Kong still belonged to China de jure. Hong Kong became a British colony by Treaty of Nanking in 1842, because according to the treaty, China ceded Hong Kong to the United Kingdom. Before Sino-Portuguese Treaty of Peking was signed in 1887, Macau was a part of China. From 1557 to 1887, Macau was a Portuguese settlement de facto, but the sovereignty and administrative right of Macau still belonged to China de jure. Macau became a Portuguese colony by Sino-Portuguese Treaty of Peking in 1887, because according to the treaty, China gave the administrative right of Macau to Portugal. In conclusion, de facto control or occupation doesn't equal to the sovereignty or administrative right. If an area's sovereignty or administrative right doesn't belong to a country , the area isn't a territory or colony of the country. MouseCatDog (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No-one disagrees about when HK became a de facto vs de jure colony. The only disagreement is which one to put for the establishment date. I just think that for an article covering the whole colonial period, it's more appropriate to use the de facto year for the simple reason that the existence of a colony (whether it ran for 1 year or 300 years) can obviously predate a treaty. Similar to how the end date of a war can predate a treaty by a year or several years. Looking at the list of administrators and governors of Hong Kong, there were two administrators and one acting administrator in 1841. The start of the colony's foundations, including the magistracy, record office, prison, barracks, Queen's Road etc. all started in 1841. Neither of these dates are 'wrong', it's just a matter of definition. So we'll have to get consensus. If there's no comments from others, I'll invite input from the relevant WikiProjects. BTW your claim that Portugal never had sovereignty over Macau - only administrative rights - is the Chinese interpretation of the treaty, which is easily debatable. But that's a separate issue. Spellcast (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it is a good idea to regard the de jure date as the establishment date. Without China's recognition, it is illegal for United Kingdom to occupy Hong Kong de facto and for Portugal to occupy Macau de facto; Hong Kong and Macau are still territories of China, not the colonies of the United Kingdom and Portugal respectively. MouseCatDog (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Your change needs consensus first. I've linked this discussion on the WikiProjects to get third opinions. I've already given my reasons for why I think the de facto date should be used, but if consensus says otherwise, so be it. Spellcast (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why even have an article on Japanese-occupied Hong Kong? By your logic and using this example, the occupation was illegal and no administration was officially established, so we shouldn't actually acknowledge those dates either. Horserice (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To Horserice: The article named "British Hong Kong" mainly talks about Hong Kong as the colony of the United Kingdom. As a colony, Hong Kong's sovereignty belonged to the United Kingdom from 1842, when China (China was represented by "Qing dynasty" at that time) ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom by Treaty of Nanking, to 1997, when United Kingdom handovered Hong Kong's sovereignty to China (China was represented by "People's Republic of China" at that time). The military of the United Kingdom de facto occupied Hong Kong island in 1841, but without China's recognition, Hong Kong was still China's territory, instead of colony of the United Kingdom, which makes British military occupation of Hong Kong become illegal. The article named "Japanese occupation of Hong Kong" mainly talks about Hong Kong de facto occupied by Japan between 1941 and 1945. In other words, the political status of Hong Kong between 1941 and 1945 is Japanese military occupation, instead of Japanese colony, because Japan didn't get Hong Kong's sovereignty from the United Kingdom, which makes Japanese military occupation of Hong Kong become illegal. MouseCatDog (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, no-one is disputing the years of de jure vs de facto governance. The only objection is towards the idea that infobox dates must only be based on de jure dates. But that's obviously not the case since war articles use de facto dates over the de jure ones when showing the period of its existence. But to be fair, the Former Country Infobox is different from the Military Conflict Infobox in the sense that it presents a more formal succession of states and territories in a historical series, which could lend support to the argument of using the de jure years of sovereignty instead. I'm still open to accepting that. There's not a lot of active engagement on this page, so give this a week or two and we could possibly post directly for a third opinion or WP:RFC afterwards. Spellcast (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm supporting 1841. The British were starting to administer the island as a bona fide colony after taking possession and not just militarily occupying it. Captain Elliot's initial proclamations about which legal systems would be used in the colony still currently has legal effect (see page 372 about proclamations). Customary law was widely used until the 1960s (see this whole journal) and is applicable in some circumstances today (see this). There's an established legal basis for the colony having begun as an administrative entity in 1841. Also open to hearing other opinions though. Horserice (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. You mentioned the article "Japanese occupation of Hong Kong" above. The political status of Hong Kong between 1941 and 1945 is Japanese military occupation, instead of Japanese colony, although there were four de facto Japanese rulers in Hong Kong between 1941 and 1945 (see "Governor of Hong Kong#List of governors"). Hong Kong was a part of Bao'an County, Guangdong which belong to China until 1842, when China ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom by "Treaty of Nanking", although the military of the United Kingdom de facto occupied Hong Kong island in 1841. In addition, the three de facto British rulers in Hong Kong between 1841 and 1842 (see "Governor of Hong Kong#List of governors") were self-proclamation and weren't recognized by China. Thus, the political status of Hong Kong between 1841 and 1842 is de jure part of China, instead of British colony. MouseCatDog (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, I'm not disputing the de jure dates. I brought up the Japanese occupation because if you strictly follow your preference to use those dates to indicate notable political change, that article shouldn't exist. Now, this article itself is about British rule over Hong Kong. I gave evidence that the British began governing the territory as if it already were an official colony, because there are enduring legal consequences for their governing decisions in 1841. If you're so insistent on using the de jure dates specifically for this article, then the lead can be ambiguous as to when British rule started. But the date in the infobox should be 1841, because that is when the administrative entity began. @Spellcast: thoughts? Horserice (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Captain Charles Elliot's proclamation, here's what Steve Tsang, perhaps the most prominent modern day historian of HK, wrote: "Although Elliot's original annexation of Hong Kong in the name of the British Crown had no legal basis and thus, his original proclamation declaring British sovereignty had only dubious legal authority, this proclamation is an important historical document." If something is done by treaty, it's generally not considered an annexation. But since Keshen (Elliot's counterpart) didn't sign their tentative agreement (despite whatever verbal approval he may have given otherwise), I guess one could argue it technically was one. The big meme is do we still consider the colony to have started in 1841 regardless? Again, this goes back to the de facto situation on the ground vs de jure situation at the highest levels. Elliot repeatedly put the proviso of "pending Her Majesty's further pleasure" in his proclamations. So back then, they were pretty much asking the same question we are in this discussion: When should we accept HK as a British territory? Well...given that even the British government didn't accept HK that year and repudiated the convention, it wouldn't be unreasonable to put 1842, the year all doubts were put to rest. Spellcast (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As a territory or colony, the area's sovereignty should belong to a country. Hong Kong was a part of Bao'an County, Guangdong which belong to China until 1842, when China ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom by Treaty of Nanking. In other words, the sovereignty of Hong Kong belong to China until 1842, and United Kingdom got the sovereignty of Hong Kong from China in 1842, although the military of the United Kingdom de facto occupied Hong Kong island in 1841, and Charles Elliot, Alexander Robert Johnston and Henry Pottinger unilaterally proclaimed that they were rulers of Hong Kong between 1841 and 1842. In conclusion, it is proper to use the de jure date (here is 1842) to show the beginning time of British Hong Kong. MouseCatDog (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. Again, there is no question that China was de jure sovereign between 1841 and 1842. You have stated that there were British administrators during 1841 to 1842. I have stated that there was some administrative structure in Hong Kong that addressed legal governance issues that persisted beyond 1841. We agree that the British controlled and administered Hong Kong in 1841. Because this article is about British rule over Hong Kong and their administration of the territory, well.. who's running the place in 1841? It's not China. Horserice (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

To Spellcast: I don't doubt that the proclamation had shaky grounding when it was initially made, but the fact that it was later referred to by a Hong Kong court to set a legal precedent validates its authority and effectively makes it law. Also, even though the government didn't ratify the convention, it was active in governing the island by appointing a new administrator for it. This article is about British rule over Hong Kong and not about who technically is supposed to control the place. Welp, the British were definitely ruling Hong Kong in 1841. Horserice (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

To Horserice: First, the article "British Hong Kong" mainly talks about Hong Kong as a colony of the United Kingdom, instead of de facto military occupation by the United Kingdom. Second, as a territory or colony, the area's sovereignty should belong to a country. Third, Hong Kong was a part of Bao'an County, Guangdong which belong to China until 1842, when China ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom by Treaty of Nanking. Fourth, the three de facto British rulers between 1841 and 1842 were self-proclamation, instead of legal officers. Thus, it is proper to use the de jure date (here is 1842) to show the beginning time of British Hong Kong. MouseCatDog (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

To Spellcast: I think we're at a standstill here. Do we do an RfC at this point? Horserice (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if we accept Elliot's proclamations, he always made it clear that his declarations were pending approval. On another note, it's incorrect when you say this article doesn't talk about the British military occupation. There's a paragraph dedicated to the 1841 negotiations, military occupation, and cession the following year. This article includes the history of the events leading up to the entire British colonial presence, not just 1842 onwards. Having said that, I think the presence of the Former Country Infobox does indeed kind of force you to present the years in a more formal or de jure sense. This normally isn't a problem for actual former countries, but there's a grey area regarding colonies or territories where the de facto/de jure years don't line up. Right now the article starts with "British Hong Kong was the period during which Hong Kong was under British Crown rule, from 1842 to 1997". If we're defining Crown rule as the start of this era, then yes 1842 is right, and the inbox should reflect that, which I've done. But the lead can just as easily start with something like "British Hong Kong refers to the colonial period of Hong Kong from its occupation by the British Empire in 1841 and its subsequent establishment as a Crown colony and later, a British Dependent Territory", and the inbox can also reflect that. Despite MouseCatDog's insistence, infobox dates do not always have to be based on de jure years (as I've explained above). Anyway, I've changed the infobox to reflect the former. I'm still open to suggestions and changes based on the latter. Don't think we need an RFC. But honestly, this is getting rather tedious and time would be better spent on more productive things! Spellcast (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

1841. There was a Convention of Chuenpi, whereas the Treaty of Nanking was meant to recognise the fait accompli, not to facilitate a forthcoming transfer. And the golden jubilee of of the foundation of the colony was celebrated in 1891. Do not rewrite history according to contemporary political preferences. 219.76.15.8 (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone changed it to 1841 but I reverted them. But I've restored it because I've just realised that Tsang's book Government and Politics in HK, which I linked above, says British rule began with the "occupation of the island" in January 1841. He says the same thing in his book A Modern History of Hong Kong. I can't exactly cite him to support 1842 when in fact the author says the opposite thing. He says this despite acknowledging that Elliot's 1841 proclamation had dubious or no legal basis. What does this mean? It proves that the start of a colonial period is not the same thing as a formal recognition of sovereignty.

Look at Portuguese Macau. Historians generally put the colonial period of Macau from 1849 to 1974. Now did China recognise Portuguese sovereignty in 1849? Of course not! But that doesn't mean a colonial period didn't exist then according to scholars. Same thing here. We have to be consistent in our reasoning. Did China recognise British sovereignty in 1841? Of course not. Hell not even the British government recognised their own sovereignty in 1841. But did that change the facts on the ground? No. Does that change scholarly opinion on when a colonial era began? No.

I'm not denying that HK was still under Chinese sovereignty in 1841, even if it was only nominal. But where I disagree with MouseCatDog (talk · contribs) is the definition of the start of a "colonial period". You believe a colonial period starts when it's officially recognised by the government. But scholars clearly don't use that as the only criteria. The US declared independence in 1776. Britain only recognised it in 1783. But of course 1776 is overwhelmingly stated as the country's formation. So the start date on the infobox - especially for a colonial article - does not mean a formal recognition of British sovereignty in 1841. It simply means that's the beginning of what historians call a colonial era, and official recognition is not a prerequisite to be considered as such. Spellcast (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

To Spellcast: Since the date's changed in the infobox, should the lead sentence be modified to reflect that as well? Horserice (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed. "Colonial rule" can be said to have started in 1841. As for "Crown rule", perhaps that term may only be valid from 1843. Spellcast (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, looks good now! Horserice (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was silly. All three dates were valid for different things, which can and should be listed and glossed in the infobox. As far as the headline dates, every similar article use de facto control. That would be the default here as well unless we wanted to underline HK's odd legal status; in that case, again, you'd just post both sets of dates. — LlywelynII 09:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

It's good that we have modern overviews and thoughts represented, but we could still use more nuts-and-bolts descriptions and facts, as available in (e.g.)

• "Hong-Kong", Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. Vol. XII (9th ed.), 1881, pp. 141–2 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help).
• "Hong-Kong", Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. Vol. XIII (11th ed.), 1911, pp. 657–9 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help).

 — LlywelynII 09:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi LlywelynII—for nuts and bolts on pre-1900 Hong Kong if there isn't a modern source available the standard work is Norton-Kyshe's History of Laws and Courts of Hongkong, which is an enormously detailed internal history of the colony with lots of primary documents copied into the text and analysed. Generally more recent sources are to be preferred for factual info over older ones, though, particularly when it's a colonial situation like here (I've noticed EB references have been aggressively removed from many articles about India for this reason). I don't think the EB in general can be considered a reliably factual source for the British Empire without cross-checking with modern scholarship. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 03:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Globalize tag

I tagged the "History" section of the article with {{Globalize}}. The section is fine for what it gives—which is almost entirely a geopolitical history of the colony, with the focus being on the UK's relations with China (and Japan). The problem is that the actual internal history of the colony, and particularly the perspective, institutions, and history of the Hong Kong Chinese who made up the overwhelming majority of the colony's population, are barely mentioned. In fact, as far as I can tell, the HK Chinese are not mentioned at all until the passing reference to "Chinese gentry" in the Japanese occupation subsection. I'm not familiar enough with the topic as a whole to give a general bibliography, but Christopher Munn's Anglo-China and Elizabeth Sinn's Power and Charity are useful up-to-date sources for the 19th century and might be a good start. I will try to work on it myself in the near future. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 03:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nizolan: I'm wondering if sources of the perspectives of the Hong Kong Chinese population are often ones written in Chinese? A lot of formal scholarship is in English, but you could consult with Chinese-speaking editors to see if they know of some additional sources that discuss their histories, perspectives, and institutions. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Nizolan, I appreciate your effort in tagging the "History" section with . It's essential to include a more comprehensive perspective that encompasses the internal history and the experiences of the Hong Kong Chinese population. Consulting with Chinese-speaking editors to access sources written in Chinese could be a valuable step in achieving a more balanced and inclusive representation. Keep up the good work! WhisperToMe's suggestion is also worth considering. 207.96.13.213 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)