Talk:Macau

From Academic Kids

Missing image Cscr-former.png Former featured article candidate

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates (where the individual nomination does not exist) please check the archive. Once the objections have been met you may resubmit the article for featured article status.

This talk page reached 35K archived discussions from Talk Macau are moved to Talk:Macau/Archive1:

• Not the Macaw Parrot
• Two discussions of the spelling Macao/Macau and possible page move
• The coat of arms
• entry of NPOV history into the text
• Query about delineation of the water boundary
• subdivisions
• universities page move TO this page

Contents

1 Dependent 2 The Three Revert Rule 3 Dependency status of Macao 4 Spelling

Dependent

Macau is not a dependent territory. It is a "special" territory. Both categories would be superfluous. Also, category of dependent territories does not seem to list individual territoires but is organized as a list of other nations dependents. This same reasoning applies to Hong Kong and I am pasting this same text there. (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 22:48, Mar 10, 2005)

Would you mind telling your definition of the term "dependent territory"? — Instantnood 23:19, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• seems like we have a similar discussion going on here too: Talk:List_of_dependent_territories.--Huaiwei 05:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, that definition does not include Macau and Hong Kong. Dependent area, read sentence 2 of paragraph 2. HK and Macau are appropriate sub-national entities not dependencies. In Chinese governmental structure they are equal to a province, but of course they are "special" as well. Yes, this definition does not agree with the listings at List_of_subnational_entities and List of dependent territories but more importantly, it agrees with Political_divisions_of_China. SchmuckyTheCat 00:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for making it clear, and paving the foundation for a discussion. The level of autonomy Hong Kong and Macao are enjoying are much higher than ordinary subnational entities. Yet they are not overseas, and theoretically do not have the right to be independent. They do demonstrate a certain degree of "a different order of separation", but at the same time they are nominally placed at the same level of provinces, as first-level divisions.

Afterall the definition at the second paragraph of dependent area is ambiguous, by words like "commonly", "in most cases", "typically" and "might be". In other words the definition in that article does not provide a simple and suitable-for-all rule of thumb. — Instantnood 01:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I mostly agree with you here, which is why dependent territory is a bad fit. A dependent territory seems more to be a possession or colony that does NOT enjoy a lot of autonomy even if it is thought of as being seperate from teh parent nation. That is why the category of "special" territory is a better fit. It is not only HK and Macau with special treatment by the main PRC government, remember. The PRC idea of federalism is weak in many regions. This does not make the SARs and autonomous regions independent, nor dependent, just special. Beijing is willing to be relaxed about their rules if they believe it unifies the entire country. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Autonomous regions and special administrative regions are not alike. Autonomous regions are much more province-like. — Instantnood 01:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• and neither are dependent. SchmuckyTheCat 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The special administrative regions fit into some of the definition of dependent territory, but not the autonomous regions. — Instantnood 07:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• yeah right. You are merely comparing with the provinces in China thats why. Autonomous regions in other countries can have a much higher standing, and I dont see how an SAR cannot be called an autonomous territory.--Huaiwei 05:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't me who started compare special administrative regions with autonomous regions (of the PRC).

This is not an issue of who started that comparison. I am asking why are you comparing with the Chiense provinces. You can always pick a better alternative.--Huaiwei 10:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you please name a few autonomous territories of other countries which statuses are comparable to Hong Kong and Macao? — Instantnood 07:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Which is why they are called SPECIAL administrative regions. I have maintained for a long time that they are in a category on their own, and that distinction is actually based on its level of AUTONOMY. What does "special administration" mean? It means it has special rights to administer itself. Now if that is not a form of autonomy, mind telling me what it is? A form of dependency?--Huaiwei 10:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, I'm tired of you baiting everything. They aren't independent. They aren't dependent. Their specifics are unique but the situation is not. They are first level divisions of the PRC with an independent arrangement for internal affairs. SchmuckyTheCat 08:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then what are they? Could you tell why a google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Hong+Kong%22+%22dependency+status%22+-%22United+Kingdom%22+-%22Britain%22&meta=) gives more than 1800 hits? And this search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22special+administrative+region%22+%22dependency+status%22&meta=) gives more than 900 hits. — Instantnood 09:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, so why dont you try other searches with different definitions?--Huaiwei 10:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My responsibility is to prove what I claimed is valid. — Instantnood 10:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Again I ask. Are you interested in a resolution?--Huaiwei 10:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do, but you never noticed and are never satisfied. If you are now interested, please read my response to Gangulf at Talk:List of dependent territories#To add? (10:29 Mar 5). — Instantnood 11:04, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

You assertion applies to yourself as well. You dont seem satisfied with other people's opinions, and neither do you seem to bother doing anything we ask of you, usually giving the excuse that it is "not your responsiblity" to do so? I suppose you also feel it is not your responsibility to stop conflicts, since you think you are not the one who ignites them?--Huaiwei 11:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please go and read it first. — Instantnood 11:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have already replied, so of coz I have read it. So whats your point?--Huaiwei 12:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule

This rule (3RR) says that no one should revert more than three times within 24 hours. At least two users have done so. This is a warning at the moment only. The next step would be a block of the offending editor for 24 hours. Anotehr possible step could be the protection of this page. This is invariably on the wrong version... Refdoc 23:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does an edit count then? It seems like the above measure came too late, and is now awarding the person who PERSISTED in the rv wars.--Huaiwei 23:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Huaiwei has made 5 reverts and was the one who started reverting. One of my four reverts was not a real revert, but an edit on the disambiguation notice. — Instantnood 23:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I undid questionable edits your conducted which where under contention. It is hardly surprising for your to revert my reverts. So who started it?--Huaiwei 23:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would suggets that both of you go and run a round around the block. I have warned everybody on this page who reverted more than three times and I will block everyone of those, when s/he reverts again. And I could not care less what the revert war is about, as I have not even read the article. Nor am I interested who started the matter, I am only interested in that it ends. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Refdoc 00:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I am going out to take a break. Goodness knows what is going to happen when I come back. And I still ask....is an edit counted as a revert? What happens when an edit war ensues?--Huaiwei 00:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Refdoc. — Instantnood 00:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

A revert happens when you revert to an earlier version, normally resulting a blank "diff". Complicating can be when you accommodate some edits but keep reverting others - the "diff" will show then the accepted edits and some interpretation of what is going on might be necessary. Fianlyy there are some people who think careful gaming of this rule is a smart move - rest assured, it is not. It is just a sign of deviousness and malice, making eventual blocks longer. And apart from all this normal editing can obviously continue. The page is not protected. Shoudl an edit war resume and shoudl I still be awake I will simply protect the page on a random version. Refdoc 00:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well thanks very much for that assurance. I suppose my concerns are more or less laid to rest, as raised in the other talkpage. If an attempt to combine small edits with the main purpose of actually removing an offending piece of text (as someone is obviously doing) is not considered a rv, I would be quite amused! ;) --Huaiwei 05:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This would be a revert trying to "game the rules". I would count it as one, if I figured this is what is happening. I am not sure how clear I need to be. I do hope that you can find a more adult solution to your problem here. I have looked at the list of both of your contributions - they are very long and many. So please continue to do productive entries rather than this silly game here. Refdoc 09:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will take my watch of this and related articles now. Contact me if you need. Refdoc 14:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dependency status of Macao

There is an ongoing debate at talk:Hong Kong#Dependency status of Hong Kong (and Macao). — Instantnood 22:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

The portal of the Macao government (http://www.gov.mo/egi/Portal/rkw/public/view/area.jsp?id=21) has recently undergone renovation. The prevalent spelling in the English version is mostly "Macao", although "Macau" is used in the Portuguese version. I am not saying we should rename all the titles on Wikipedia, but at least we cannot say that "Macao" is the wrong spelling, and all titles should be standardised with "Macau". — Instantnood 05:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

And in fact the passports issued by the Macao government have Macao (in English) and Macau (in Portuguese) printed on the cover. — Instantnood 14:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, most of the sublinks from that site have Macau spelt as such even in English articles and websites.--Huaiwei 17:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)