Talk:Political divisions of China

• /archive1
• /archive2

---

Contents

1 Title dispute continued 2 Special administrative regions and 1982 Constitution 2.1 Alternative 3 Are special administrative regions province level? 4 Table - why no postal pinyin names?

Title dispute continued

I am deeply troubled by the title of this article (so as other China related articles). Previously, Jiang, eloquently gave me a lession on the difference between country and state. Country is mainly mentioned in a geographic context; whereas state has more implication on the sovereignty.

Now, the title here is a geographic entity which does not have sovereignty as a state. China can not have political divisions. PRC has the sovereignty and has the power to assign political divisions.

If we can have an article like political divisions of China over a geographical entity, how come people do not create political divisions of balkan or political divisions of Caribbean? Can China have political division? Does China has sovereignty? I believe the most correct and neutral title is the political division of PRC. The same quesion applies on the article Province of China. Mababa 07:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe the aritcle Provinces of Korea would be able to give us some enlightment on how to properly handle this problem. Korea used to be a state-country and it did have provinces. However, current Korea, as a country, is divided into north and south Korea states. Therefore, the political division of each states are wiki-linked to separate articles. I suggest we can either emulate their strategy and convert this article into a historical introduction; or we can change the title to PRC's political division. Certainly, Taiwan and other disputed areas should definately be listed as part of PRC so as she claims. However, ROC should be isolated from being listed together with PRC, unless we take the position to assume they are not only the same country but also the same state.Mababa 05:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mababa, I just stumbled upon your concerns/questions while browsing through wiki. I'm new to this discussion (and to wiki), so I can't offer much except a few personal comments of my opinion. After reading your comments, I looked at the Political divisions of China article, and then I looked at the Provinces of Korea article. I must say that I really like the approach used by the Provinces of Korea article, and I personally think that the Political divisions of China article would stand to gain by using that approach. There already exists a Political divisions of the Republic of China article. It would make sense to me to have a separate article called Political divisions of the People's Republic of China, and have the Political divisions of China article contain history and a link to both articles. This way, Political divisions of the Peoples Republic of China can have information of the current political divisions as administered by the PRC, and the other article, Political divisions of the Republic of China, can have the current information on the current political divisions as administered by the ROC. But since I'm new to the wiki community, my opinions probably don't have a lot of clout, and I don't know how much support you will garner from the rest of the community on this issue. Good luck though. ~Wang123 (Talk) 12:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wang123, Thank you so much for your kind words and also thank you for your support on my proposal. Actually, I am new to Wiki myself, too. I do not have any clout either. :) However, I believe that having legitimate reason is probably more important than having strong clouts. Everyone's opinions counts. I am certainly awared of the possibility not being able to garner much support on this proposal. However, there are many people at the administrative level who not only are open minded but also are willing to reason/discuss in this community. As long as we can discuss and reason, I do not particularly insist nor am I too worried. Many thanks to your warm comment. :) I wish you have a nice day.Mababa 04:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The difference between this and the Korean issue is that when people say "Korea", they mean both North and South, which are clearly delineated. when people say "China", they usually mean the People's Republic of China. However, we cannot simply treat them synonymously since the mass western usage is not NPOV (and in the eyes of many, not accurate). Therefore, we mention province-level divisions of the ROC and explain how they're claimed/treated by the PRC. This is still NPOV--its fine to discuss the political divisions within the entity known as "China"--they do exist. "China" could mean a cultural entity that was once united but now isnt, or it can mean the Communist state, which the ROC/Taiwan just hanging there. Given how the latter usage is so widespread, I think the current setup makes it much easier for those trying to find the content on this page. It is also much more informative to juxtapose the PRC and ROC in terms of their political divisions, than to completely separate them, due to the historical basis for these divisions and the political controversy still involved.--Jiang 23:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will first response shortly here and I think I will have a longer response later. In short, if a political entity "China" does exist as you suggested, which state do Wikipedia and the article "Political divisions of China" reward the title to?Mababa 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

both. of course, this works out nicely because by the virtue of size and importance, the mainland gets more coverage. that's what people are looking for--Jiang 06:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Jiang. However, I would like to say that your reply makes me more worried about the neutrality and accuracy on this article.

Let's shortly review the political NPOV policy of Wiki:

Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government.

==>This is a written policy telling us: there should not be a political entity called China.

Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations.

==>This can be immediately translated as Wiki does not endorse ROC to be part of PRC.

Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. It should be only described as part of the Republic of China.

==>This can be immediately translated as Wiki does not endorse Taiwan to be part of PRC.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29#Political_NPOV)

If I interpret correctly, you have introduced two contradictory ideas to justify listing both PRC and ROC under a state name called China in this article.

1)When people say "China", they usually mean the People's Republic of China.
Since people are looking for articles pertinent for PRC under the title of China, therefore we should indirectly equate China with PRC so that westerners can find information on PRC, something they are looking for.

Certainly, in the reality out side of the Wikipedia, the general public equates PRC with China and ROC with Taiwan. However, this is the value out side of the Wikipedia. In Wiki, I thought the policy is keeping neutral on topics such as whether Taiwan is part of China, or whether ROC is part of PRC. In this way, people from both side do not get information bias against their position and also the general public would well informed on the position from different perspects. I am sure that you know this better than I do.

To begin with, the reason to keep this article with PRC and ROC listed together is already biased with the mindset equating PRC with China. Listing ROC together with PRC under a same political entity China, not only failed to treat ROC as a sovereign country but also indirectly endorsed the idea that Taiwan ruled by ROC is part of China (a political entity commonly percieved as PRC). I think it is obviously not inline with the NPOV policy of the Wikipedia which does not make China as a political entity nor imply Taiwan to be part of China/PRC. By keeping the curent title, we are mixing the value from Wiki with perception outside of Wiki.

Thus, we should distinct the single political entity of China (if there is any) from PRC or ROC. Unless, we should change the NPOV policy and start to separate out the political entity of China and equate it with the entity of PRC.

2)The political entity of China should be rewarded to both PRC and ROC
Therefore, you suggest that both ROC and PRC should be rewarded as China (an entity commonly percieved as PRC), to circumvent the situation endorsing the idea: Taiwan ruled by ROC to be part of PRC by generously also granting ROC the title China.

Again, this is something not in line with the Chinese NPOV policy: not to coincide China with any political sovereign state or government.

Further, this is something people from PRC's perspective would strongly oppose because you are endorsing the idea of "Two China", a situation PRC opposes in various occasions. For example, Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China August 17, 1982 states: The United States Government attaches great importance to its relations with China, and reiterates that it has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China's internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan." I think I do not need to elaborate on their point of view. Claiming there is TWO CHINA is a big No No for the PRC government.

Moreover, since this position is elaborated from the position 1)general public equates China=PRC. Even if we grant ROC with the title China, the title would still carry the the implication PRC=China and therefore PRC=China>=ROC. This is still a POV.

Lastly, I am not quite sure if any side across the strait would be happy to see ROC to be called China. Certainly not PRC. With only 10~20% of Taiwanese residents prefer unification, probably >80% of Taiwanese residents would not be delighted by your generous offer calling them as China either.Mababa 06:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mababa you may be interested to take a look of the dicussions at the #Title and Talk:Political_divisions_of_China/archive2#Unhelpful note removed sections of this page. The following comment by an annonymous contributor is extracted from the discussion above, and I agree with.

"Perhaps we can collaborate to rewrite this article, making the content on mainland China's system like the manner of that of Hong Kong, Macao and the ROC, and move most the main content to a new article on mainland China's system. -- 202.61.116.67 04:50, January 15, 2005, UTC"

In my opinion this article should be contains general descriptions and outlines of the history of administrative divisions of China, and the current administrative divisions of the present-day jurisdictions in the China region, namely mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao. Probably a comparison between PRC's and ROC's systems should also be included. The materials should be taken from the corresponding "main articles". (and the content about PRC's system could be moved to a new article titled "Administrative divisions of mainland China".) — Instantnood 10:46, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Instantnood. I do agree that the historical aspects of the administrative divisions of China should be the focus of the article under this current title "Political divisions of China." This is actually why the article Provinces of Korea is being introduced here as a potential model for us.

However, I still object listing administrative divisions of PRC and ROC together under the current title "Political divisions of China." Conventional wisdom tells us that PRC is commonly being equated as China in the public mass media and that ROC is commonly equated as Taiwan.

Due to the situation where Wikipedia does not endorse neither against Taiwan as part of China or as an independent country, the term "Taiwan" is not used as a political entity in Wikipedia as part of the NPOV policy. Simultaneously, the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government. Thus, the political entity called China does not exist in Wikipedia. Otherwise, the political entity called Taiwan should be pervasively used to replace ROC government as the public mass media do.

Ran did a good job in segregating PRC and ROC in the article. It is the title confering China to be a political entity troubling. No matter how we carefully treat this title, the political entity "China" would always regared by the pulic as the PRC. Listing administrative levels of PRC together with ROC under a political entity called "China," is not only political incorrect, but also failed to treat ROC as an sovereign state as the Chinese political NPOV convention stipulated. So as Jiang eloquantly said: "we're making the implication that Taiwan is part of China much more obvious." Puting PRC and ROC together under this title constitutes a clear POV. Furthermore, if we failed to call the current title a POV, then you and I will be forcing Wikipedia to endorse the PRC's position :"There is only one China in the world. Both the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.[2] (http://www.chinaembassy.org.zw/eng/xwdt/t149116.htm)" This is probably not acceptible in Wikipedia.

Unless the Chinese naming convention/political NPOV policy is changed to allow the term "China" to be used as a political entity as the common usage refering to the PRC, the term "China" should not be used as a political entity. On the otherhand, if such change is made, the term "Taiwan" should simultaneously be used as a political entity as well. Until that day comes, the current NPOV policy should consistantly be upheld in all China-related articles. The term "China" should be treated as a geographical territory with a history covering Mongolia, Korea and perhaps Vietnam.

In my opinion, the best way to treat the article is what anon previously suggested, make the Political divisions of China to be a disambig page leading people to the article on political divisions of the Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia respectively. Of course the historical background should always be added as you suggested. Readers should also be well informed of the Political status of Taiwan when ROC is mentioned here. Quite many people in Taiwan does not regard ROC administration legitimate and we should avoid making an article biased against them too.

BTW, I have briefly glanced through the article Geography of China, I do not see any reason why it can not be moved to XYZ of PRC. The current setting looks more like a political entity to me. Should that China be a geographic territory, it should also include mongolia. Perhaps someone can help me understand what is the China being refered there.Mababa 04:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The historical aspect of political divisions of China is already covered by the article History of the political divisions of China. Unlike the Provinces of Korea article, the history article covers everything about administrative divisions in Chinese history. The Provinces of Korea article is more like traditional counties of the United Kingdom (or perhaps ceremonial counties as well), as oppose to the current provinces of North Korea and South Korea and administrative counties of the United Kingdom. The provinces of Korea (the eight provinces, Paldo, 팔도, 八道) is in fact just like the Chinese sayings of Jiǔzhōu (九州). (Note: the Provinces of Korea article is currently under rewriting.)

Therefore in my opinion, the Political divisions of China article should be an outline, with summaries (as different sections) of several main articles.

Currently there are articles dealing with province, autonomous region, municipality, special administrative region, prefecture, autonomous prefecture, prefecture-level city, sub-provincial city, leagues, district, county, autonomous county, county-level city, sub-prefecture-level city, banner, autonomous banner, district public office, township, and town of China, all with the title China, and some with the contents mainly deal with that of the PRC (or to be exact, mainland China, as Hong Kong and Macao are outside the system). To conform with the naming conventions, many of these articles will have to be rewritten. Furthermore, the Template:PRC divisions levels is titled as "This article is part of the series: Political divisions of China".

Some (or perhaps many) people from Taiwan may not consider the ROC government legitimate to rule Taiwan, but that's the current situation. By mentioning the government currently governing Taiwan is nothing POV, and in fact that's the naming conventions, that "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.".

By the way, I've started a discussion over the title of the article Geography of China. — Instantnood 18:59, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, your proposal has yet solved by question: China should not be used as a political entity to trap ROC into it. This is what the convention requires us to enforce and follow. I am also certain that the article of History of the political divisions of China can be merged into current article without a problem. Your proposal still maks China as a political entity and also ROC to be part of it. I am not sure if the problem would be solve in your proposed senario.

Two comments on your response:

Some (or perhaps many) people from Taiwan may not consider the ROC government legitimate to rule Taiwan, but that's the current situation."

The current situation does not make Taiwan to be part of China. By analogy in your logic, we can say Iraq is par of US. Moreover, without political implication, even call Taiwan is part of geographic of China is questionable. No matter how careful Taiwan/ROC is being mentioned in a context of China, the readers should always be made aware of the debate on the political status of Taiwan to make that article neutral.

"Some (or perhaps many) people from Taiwan may not consider the ROC government legitimate to rule Taiwan, but that's the current situation. By mentioning the government currently governing Taiwan is nothing POV" quote form Instantnood.

Therefore you are suggesting a article making "both ROC and PRC to be part of China" neutral? I am sure that many people would tell us straight that it is a POV.Mababa 04:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current NPOV convention policy give nice protection for both side so that no statements in Wiki should take side on either side. I am happy and amazed on how nice it works; and I actually do not seek a different definition of the term "China" or a change of the NPOV. However, practically, there is a clear need to direct China to PRC and thus the articles such as the politics of China exists which is dedicated solely to PRC, even though the usage of "China" does not comply with the NPOV convention. I am cool with that since it nicely serves the purpose for the general public looking for information on PRC and did not make political statement that ROC is part of it. In this arrangement, PRC's claim over Taiwan is still left neutral and was not damaged nor bolstered.

Now, I would be even happier if the article political divisions of China and the aritcle province of China can follow that arrangement, leave ROC outside of the article and stop the current POV situation. Again, PRC's claim over Taiwan would nicely be kept intact. Information on ROC/Taiwan would be disambigued either at the top of the page or at the end or only when disputed province Taiwan is mentioned. We should also make readers awared of the diputed political status of Taiwan as well. I think this would be the most easy way out for both side and actually does not require too much of editing on these page since Ran handled the two political entity so well and careful enough, so that not too many ROC segments are interwined with the PRC. Though the NPOV convention not accurately followed in this arrangement, for practical reasons, I would not further make any fuss as long as the article is no longer has the change to leave readers with POV impression. If this does not work, please give alternative suggestions that complies with the current NPOV policy or other creative solutions that do not bias against Taiwan/ROC's general public. Please comment on this proposal.Mababa 00:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While the naming conventions forbids using PRC synonymously with China, it does allow ambiguity. Although we cant assign "China" to any single political entity, this doesnt prevent there to be political entities within China, as is indeed the case. As such, it is not illogical to talk about the political divisions within China. NPOV is not openly declaring there is no political entity that is synonymous with China--that is a POV. NPOV is to say what each party believes, whether there is an entity synonymous with China and what it is.

We did not declare here that Taiwan is part of the PRC. We notably separated it from the table of provinces and give it its own section as the "Disputed province". (note that Jhongsing Village and not Taipei is listed as the capital of the province...counterclaims should be mentioned) We also did not declare that China refers to the PRC (in fact, due to the repeated mentions of the ROC, we implied otherwise). We also separated the ROC municipalites from the PRC municipalities in different tables. Given how we've attributed each division and factoid separately to its relevant entity, it is clear that we are in line with the guidelines of treating the ROC and PRC as separate and sovereign entities with "equal status". (the guidelines are running into POV, in my opinion, but since you cited them...) We did not decribe Taiwan to be the PRC and in NPOV speak, outlined the various claims on Taiwan's sovereignty. Therefore, I don't think we violated the Chinese naming conventions anywhere in the article and by the current setup.

I see two problems with the current setup: 1) we imply that the Republic of China is alive and functional by repeated mentions of its current divisions, counter to PRC claims that it has fallen defunct since 1949 and 2) we imply that both the PRC and ROC are part of China by mentioning both. The first is unavoidable since there is a government called the ROC that functions with these divisions. The only remedy is to mention under "Disputed province" the PRC's divisions for Taiwan--that is, what they were in 1949 just as we've mentioned that the ROC's divisions for the mainland are what they were in 1949. The second can perhaps be remedied by what your propose, but I think it will still create more problems than what it's worth. We will still need to mention Taiwan due to the PRC claim. However, if we mention the PRC's assigned divisions or whatnot, we'll still have to mention the ROC's divisions as informative NPOV. This puts us back to what we have now for an article and brings your assertion that we're implying the ROC is part of the PRC closer to reality.

I find the current setup much more useful due to the same historical devlopment of both the ROC and PRC. The current system really displays a lot of parallels since they are from the same root. Pointing out these parallels would be lost if we carried out your proposal. Putting in a disambiguation page does not solve point two described above since you're still linking to the ROC divisions as one of the possible options. This makes it more POV since it gives equal coverage to both the PRC and ROC when we would otherwise, by the virtue of size and importance, focus on the mainland. This is countereffective and carries any POV implications further. If we left out the link, then we imply that China=PRC and that is unacceptable. The situation is very hairy and I think what we have is the best alternative, though no alternative is perfect. --Jiang 11:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Special administrative regions and 1982 Constitution

"Special administrative regions are not within the administrative divisions structure of the People's Republic of China as according to Article 30 of the Constitution of the PRC. "

Article 30 of the constitution says no such thing. It is clearly not an exhaustive list, since it does not include prefectures, leagues, banners, autonomous banners, forestry areas, sumuns, ethnic sumuns, etc. either.

On the other hand, Article 12 of the Hong Kong Basic Law states that:

"The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government."

And Article 12 of the Macau Basic Law states that:

"The Macao Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government."

-- ran (talk) 15:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Special administrative regions are not within the system prescribed in Article 30 of the PRC's 1982 Constitution. The changes (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_divisions_of_China&diff=next&oldid=11362060) that I have made are valid and normative.

Prefectures are in fact "設區的市" or "較大的市" (which are "分為區、縣。"). Leagues, banners and autonomous banners are the same thing as autonomous prefectures (自治州) but name. The same applies to sumus and ethnic sumus, as opposed to ethnic townships (民族鄉). — Instantnood 17:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, "設區的市" or "較大的市" are prefecture-level cities. Prefectures are nowhere to be found. Moreover, the constitution does not explicitly allow prefecture-level cities to contain county-level cities. This happens anyways. Clearly the constitution is not exhaustive in this matter.

Also, how do you explain article 12 of HK's and Macau's basic laws? -- ran (talk) 20:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The sentence that I added only said special administrative regions are not part of the administrative division system/structure as prescribed in Article 30. "Local administrative region" is not necessarily within the structure (Article 30). — Instantnood 21:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since Article 30 obviously doesn't have the final say on this matter, what is the point of quoting it as the one and only authoritative source of what constitutes or does not constitute an administrative entity of the PRC? Also, please explain: "Local administrative region" is not necessarily within the structure (Article 30).. What is your definition of an "administrative structure", such that a given administrative entity of a country can actually be not found in that country's administrative structure? Isn't that a contradiction? -- ran (talk) 22:33, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Back to the basic. Do you agree with the fact that special administrative regions are not prescribed by Article 30, which governs PRC's administrative division system? — Instantnood 23:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

This is a loaded question. It is clear that Article 30 is not an exhaustive specification of the PRC's administrative division system. -- ran (talk) 00:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The words that I have added do not comment on whether Article 30 is exhaustive.

Article 30 is responsible for the administrative structure, but special administrative regions are governed by Article 31. — Instantnood 03:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The words that I have added do not comment on whether Article 30 is exhaustive. Yes they do. You imply that because SARs aren't mentioned in Article 30, they aren't part of the administrative structure.
Besides, if SARs aren't part of the administrative structure of the PRC, then what are they, I wonder? -- ran (talk) 04:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying they are (or aren't) part of the administrative structure. What I'm saying is they're not part of the structure prescribed by Article 30. — Instantnood 05:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

But do you agree that SARs are part of the administrative structure of the PRC? -- ran (talk) 05:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

and first level divisions at that? SchmuckyTheCat 05:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's step back for a moment. Imagine that in the article Zingelia, about a country called the Federated Republic of Zingelia, I came across the following sentence:
Autonomous ethnic republics are not within the administrative divisions structure of the Federated Republic of Zingelia as according to Article 49 of the Constitution of Zingelia.
Don't you think that I, or any other reader, would come to the following conclusions? :

1. That autonomous ethnic republics indeed aren't part of the Zingelian administrative structure.
2. That Article 49 of the Zingelian constitution made it so.

Don't you think that it is perfectly expected for the reader to come to the above conclusions based on what he / she reads?
If, however, Article 49 is not the only thing in the Zingelian constitution about this matter; if Article 50 goes straight on to talk about Autonomous ethnic republics; if, in fact, the constitution of Davadaria, a Zingelian Autonomous Ethnic Republic, says explicitly that "Davadaria shall be a local administrative region of Zingelia"; don't you think we would be misleading the reader somewhat? -- ran (talk) 05:39, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please double check the wordings of articles 30 and 31. Article 30 states the administrative structures of the State. Article 31 talks about the special administrative regions, without addressing whether they are within the same system in Article 30. Special administrative regions may or may not be in the same system prescribed in Article 30. One cannot rule out the possibility that they are indeed two different systems of the same State. Likewise, one cannot say they are under the provision of the system. — Instantnood 05:51, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

One cannot rule out the possibility that they are indeed two different systems of the same State. So you do agree that SARs are part of the administrative structure of the PRC? -- ran (talk) 14:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The only evidence are the articles 12 of the basic laws of Hong Kong and Macao. Both don't tell whether they belong to any system or structure, and therefore there is not enough information to tell. What I can tell is they are not within the administrative division system prescribed by Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution. — Instantnood 15:51, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The only set of system in the 1982 Constitution is the one prescribed by Article 30, and special administrative regions are not within this system. — Instantnood 15:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The only evidence are the articles 12 of the basic laws of Hong Kong and Macao. -- Instantnood, those are the constitutions of Hong Kong and Macau. How could you possibly use the word "only" in this context?
Both don't tell whether they belong to any system or structure, and therefore there is not enough information to tell. -- okay, tell me. What do you understand by the following phrase: "the administrative divisions structure of the PRC". Don't you agree that by definition alone, all administrative divisions of the PRC, no matter how diverse or special, belong to this system?
This is getting ridiculous. "Yes, this fruit is a type of apple, but it's not part of the apple species". -- ran (talk) 17:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Aren't articles 12 of the two basic laws the only source of evidence? Is there any other source of evidence?

What more evidence do you need? I've given you the friggin constitutions of Hong Kong and Macau. Do you need the divine word of God to convince you?!

The administrative divisions are the entities within the PRC with their local level governments. And yes, by this definition special administrative regions are administrative divisions. But this doesn't change the fact that special administrative regions are not by the provision of Article 30 of the Constitution, which governs the administrative divisions system of the PRC. — Instantnood 19:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've already repeatedly shown that Article 30 is not fully exhaustive in this matter! Article 30 says nothing about prefectures, district public offices, or villager and community committees. It does not list leagues, banners, forestry areas and special areas by name. And it does not allow municipalities or prefecture-level cities to oversee county-level cities. Yet these things happen anyways. Clearly we should look at if something is actually a subdivision of the PRC rather than dig around Article 30 to see if it's named specifically.

To apply your fruit and apple analogy: this fruit looks to be an apple, but it is not classified in the same way like other breeds of apples. We cannot tell whether it is or it isn't an apple. What we can tell is that it is not classified in the same way as other breeds of apples do. — Instantnood 19:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The fruit calls itself an apple!!!! It may be a very special apple that is green all the time, and may belong to a different subspecies of apple. But it is an apple!!! Since it is a type of apple, it is part of the apple species!!
I'm sorry, instantnood, but this debate is getting to a level of absurdity that no sane human being can tolerate. I recommend that this matter be brought to the attention of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood. -- ran (talk) 20:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

What I have been trying to say is that this fruit is not classified in the same way as other breeds (or subspecies) of apples do. It is not classified by the same classification scheme (Article 30 of the Constitution). It may or may not be an apple. The only thing we can concluded is that it is not classified in the same way, and there is little, if not no, evidence in telling whether it is or it is not an apple, even though it most probably is. Other sources saying it is an apple has not made its way to be covered in the classification scheme.

This is a matter of the content, and the RfC should be about the content, but not about a user (i.e. me in this case). — Instantnood 20:27, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Are prefectures part of the administrative structure of China, Instantnood? -- ran (talk) 01:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Constitution does not tell how many levels exactly there are. The legal bases for prefectures could be from other laws. — Instantnood 08:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative

What about changing the wordings in this way?

" [[Special administrative region]]s (特別行政區/特别行政区 tèbiéxíngzhèngqū) (SARs) are local administrative regions enjoying a high degree of autonomy under the [[One country, two systems]] arrangement, and come directly under the [[Central People's Government]], as provided in the articles 12 of both [[Basic Law of Hong Kong|basic laws]] of the two SARs.

" Unlike provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, which legal bases were provided in the Article 30 of the [[Constitution of the People's Republic of China|1982 Constitution]] that governs administrative divisions, special administrative regions were provided for in the Article 31, in anticipation of the retrocession of Hong Kong and Macau. They were established in 1997 and 1999 in Hong Kong and Macau respectively when the sovereignty of the two entities were transferred from the [[United Kingdom]] to the People's Republic of China.

" The two special administrative regions come directly under the Central People's Government. As opposed to other provincial-level administrative divisions (provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions), SARs reserve much bigger autonomy, with their own [[Court of Final Appeal|courts of final appeal]], [[legal system]]s, [[passport]]s, [[currency|currencies]], [[custom]]s control, [[immigration]] policies, [[extradition]], etc., except [[diplomacy|diplomatic relations]] and [[national defence]]. The SARs participated in various international organisations and sport events as separate members/teams from the PRC. " — Instantnood 08:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not bad. Go for it. -- ran (talk) 13:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — Instantnood 14:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Are special administrative regions province level?

No where in the 1982 Constitution, or in the basic laws of Hong Kong and Macao, says special administrative regions are province level divisions. — Instantnood 08:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• so? what else are they? SchmuckyTheCat 15:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They send representatives to the National People's Congress in the same way as other province level divisions. Also, ISO 3166-2 treats them this way. -- ran (talk) 17:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The PLA also send representatives to the NPC as province level divisions do. And they are assiged ISO 3166-1. The 1982 Constitution does not state which level special administrative regions are. The articles 12 of the basic laws of Hong Kong and Macao says they are "local administrative units" " come directly under the Central People's Government". (Note: CPG ≠ State Council) — Instantnood 18:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've asked this question for you on Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 00:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) Insta: can you find me anything that says autonomous regions and municipalities are province-level? Not implies, says. -- ran (talk) 03:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) Actually insta, can you define for me the term, "province-level division"? -- ran (talk) 03:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Umm.. Province level means at the same level as provinces do. Article 30 does not explicitly say autonomous regions and municipalities are at the same level as provinces. But the way it presents does mean it. — Instantnood 06:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why does Article 30 "mean it"? You can't just say that it "implies" it. Article 30 does not explicitly say, "autonomous regions are the same as provinces". In fact, laws elsewhere clearly tell us that autonomous regions have more power than provinces. So how can you say they're at the same level? -- ran (talk) 14:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

A difficult question. It's beyond my knowledge to give an answer at the time being. — Instantnood 16:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think before we ask whether something is "province-level", we need a clear definition of "province-level" that everyone can agree on. -- ran (talk) 19:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, insta, if you search for "省級行政單位" on Google, you'll see that pretty much everyone gives the SARs as province-level divisions. -- ran (talk) 19:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Expected. :-D But then there's something different between SARs and other province-level divisions in the way the constitution deals with them. — Instantnood 21:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is "something different" but what practical difference is there in a list of first level divisions of China? Look how wikipedia handles the US, which has states, a federal district, insular areas like territories (incorporated or not), etc. They are all "first level" divisions, from California to unpopulated islands. There is no practical purpose to arguing whether a Chinese SAR is equal to a province in the context of this article - it's a first level politicl division, simple, easy. SchmuckyTheCat 21:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But then there's something different between SARs and other province-level divisions in the way the constitution deals with them. -- so what? There's an entire separate law dealing with autonomous regions, summarizing the special powers that they have. What proof do you have that autonomous regions are, in fact, province-level divisions?

The fact is that, since there is no legislation thusfar indicating otherwise, the term "province-level division" is strictly a conventional expression. It refers to all administrative divisions that do not come under some other administrative division. We don't have a legal definition; so far we have only found this conventional definition, which also seems to be dominant in everyday usage. And thus this is what we stick with. -- ran (talk) 01:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I understand this is a common usage. If I were to make a choice I would prefer first-order to province level. Special administrative regions are not within the same administrative division system with other divisions. The Constitution does not say which level they are. — Instantnood 06:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The constitution does not say which level anything is. The wording is vague too for autonomous regions and municipalities. Also, as far as current usage is concerned, "first-order" is synonymous with "province-level". -- ran (talk) 06:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

At least autonomous regions and municipalities are governed by the same paragraph of an article in the constitution. Special administrative region is provided in another article. — Instantnood 10:12, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

So? That shows nothing. I've already asked you for more explicit proof that they're in the same level. I've in fact asked you for a definition of "province level", since without that we can't even discuss this topic. But you haven't provided either. -- ran (talk) 14:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It's so vague that even saying anything is which level is not possible. What I can recognise is that special administrative region is provided for in a different article from the rest of the administrative divisions. — Instantnood 09:38, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's so vague that even saying anything is which level is not possible. Then it's settled. "Province-level" is a term established not by law, but by convention. By convention SAR's are province-level. -- ran (talk) 19:49, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe instead of province level, we should make recognition of the SARs autonomy and independence and make everything else a second level division. Or, maybe, we should just list them as countries. here fishie fishie SchmuckyTheCat 20:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(response to Ran's comment at 19:49, Apr 2) That's what I find problematic, and cannot agree with. For those who are perfectly familiar with it, it might be okay to do so. To average readers, this way of presentation is in effect implying they're simply provinces, with a different name. — Instantnood 08:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is why there's an entire paragraph devoted to explaining the ways in which SAR's are "special"? -- ran (talk) 18:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Right. And IMHO "first-order" is a much better choice than "province-level". — Instantnood 18:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is no one really refers to the SARSSARs or any other political division of the PRC as "province level" until I see you constantly talking about it in other dispute pages. I have always refered to them as "first order or first level subnational divisions", which btw, you expressed opposition towards before. I suppose you have changed your mind.--Huaiwei 19:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My position remains. They are not provided for by the same set of division system. — Instantnood 06:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are blabbing about. Since you agree that "first-order" is a much better choice than "province-level", then you are indeed singing the same song as I had. You once vehemently opposed the notion that the SARs are first order divisions.--Huaiwei 10:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Table - why no postal pinyin names?

Umm...wouldn't it be more useful on the table to give the old Postal System Pinyin names for the provinces instead of (or in addition to) the pinyin name with accents? I mean, it is much more useful to know the old names, which one might come across in older books, or perhaps even now in some historical books, rather than the various accents in the proper pinyin transliteration? john k 21:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)