Talk:Special administrative regions of China/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation

Note: This article was previously titled Special Administrative Region. Some of the discussions below predate the creations of special administrative region (disambiguation) (talk) and special administrative region (Republic of China) (talk).

Freedom of Movement?

One thing this article does not discuss is the freedom of movement of Chinese citizens and SAR citizens. Can mainland Chinese live in Hong Kong and vice versa? The article makes the SARs sound like de facto independent countries only vaguely referring to 'immigration' policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

cat dependent territory

an SAR is not a dependent territory. InstandNood, you gave up that argument at HK and Macau, why are you trying to make it here? SchmuckyTheCat 02:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Special administrative districts of the ROC

On this map (published in 1964) "Hainan Special Administrative District" is used instead of "Special Administrative Region". — Instantnood 16:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first time inconsistent translations have given us problems... -- ran (talk) 16:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Eh very true.. headache.. — Instantnood 18:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The content on the special administrative regions of the ROC had been split to special administrative region (Republic of China). — Instantnood 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

ROC

I fail to see why the ROC infobox should be on this page, it's entirely historical.

But, since it is, I moved it mid-point in the section because it doubles up horizontally instead of vertically at my (current) viewing resolution (1280 on firefox, I'm sure it's still broken at 1680). Is there a way to force two right justified templates to a vertical layout? SchmuckyTheCat 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The content on the special administrative regions of the ROC had been split to special administrative region (Republic of China). — Instantnood 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation

There is currently a debate over whether the title of this article has to be capitalised, i.e. special administrative region or Special Administrative Region. Relevant sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], relevant previous/ongoing discussions [1] [2] [3]. — Instantnood 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This has now been listed on Wikipedia:HK wikipedians' notice board. enochlau (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Aceh and East Timor

The article needs either (1) to be rewritten to use the term as a generic and include reference to the Special Administrative Region of Aceh and other proposed SARs in Indonesia such as the fomrer province of East Timor and the Province of Papua or (2) to be moved to Special Administrative Region (China) with a separate article on Special Administrative Region (Indonesia). I'd argue for option (1) to avoid the mess that exists around Federal district and National Capital Territory. Alan 15:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. sometimes the most well-known and common usage is kept under a title as it is, with the disambiguation page under the title [[subject matter (disambiguation)]]. As for special administrative region I'd say it's most commonly associated with Hong Kong and Macau, as reflected by the links to the article and Google test. Of course you may say it's systemic bias, but then as for the time being I'd prefer keeping this article at where it is, with the rest at special administrative region (disambiguation) [6]. This can be changed at anytime by community consensus. — Instantnood 17:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The content on the special administrative regions of other sovereign states had been split to special administrative region (disambiguation) (talk). — Instantnood 19:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrative division

There's currently a debate on whether the special administrative regions of the PRC are administrative divisions, at talk:list of China administrative divisions by population. — Instantnood 18:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a debate, that is you being obstinate and denying reality to everyone else involved. That you disagree doesn't mean concensus isn't clear. SchmuckyTheCat 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If that were the reality, please justify it be presenting the necessary evidence over there. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I did, and so did Ran. The question presented to you to define what HK is, if not an administrative division, has been left unanswered five times. SchmuckyTheCat 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As explained, I speak only from facts and evidence, not speculations. I posess no evidence to answer the question, neither do you or user:Ran. — Instantnood 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to see the evidence, that Instandnood asks for. IMO it should be presented here and not in a divisions by population page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What evidence, then, Tobias? The category being removed here already contains a subcategory for the two SARs. This article describes the situation of the two SARs. In the context of the PRC and the categorization scheme here, "administrative division" is a generic all-encompassing term for all the PRC divisions: regions, prefectures, municipalities, provinces, districts, SARs, etc. Instantnood wants to claim that Hong Kong is something "other" than an administrative division, which, because the term used here is all-encompassing, essentially puts it outside the PRC organizational structure entirely. SchmuckyTheCat 21:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some user wanted to divide all country subdivisions worldwide into political division and administrative divisions. E.g. he marked the US states as PD. But hmm, since the thing is call administrative region, it looks as if it were an administrative division. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I am somewhat aware of WAS and his silly "must put everything into binary organization buckets" campaigns. This, afaik, isn't related to that. SchmuckyTheCat 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:SchmuckyTheCat comment at 21:59, May 1) " In the context of the PRC and the categorization scheme here, "administrative division" is a generic all-encompassing term for all the PRC divisions: regions, prefectures, municipalities, provinces, districts, SARs, etc. ", " because the term used here is all-encompassing, essentially puts it outside the PRC organizational structure entirely. " - In the 1982 Constitution of the PRC, shěng, zhíxiáshì and zìzhìqū are actually explicitly stated to be administrative divisions ("中华人民共和国的行政区域划分如下: ..") Nowhere in the Constitution, the two basic laws and any other law had special administrative region, or the existing special administrative regions, been explicitly stated to be administrative divisions in the same manner. — Instantnood 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Inst, do you mean HK and Macao are seperate countries (e.g. they still have their own ISO 3166-1 codes, as have Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey since some days) and therefore should not be regarded as part of the PRC-gov/admin system? Maybe it's like a continuum, departments of France have very little rights, US states more, and the PRC-SARs even more. And the EU members again more, within the EU. Possibly only few people would regard Germany as administrative division of the EU. But that depends on the definition of these divisions. All UN members are kind of divisions. They have very much rights, but the UN has the "right" to intervene - or at least thinks so. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion here deals with legal and constitutional designations. The 1982 Constitution of the PRC explicitly states something are administrative divisions, but special administrative regions are not stated to be. Please refer to talk:list of China administrative divisions by population for more details. — Instantnood 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

so the disagreement stem from the two views: A.D. seen as legal term, or A.D. seen more as generic. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Legally and constitutionally speaking, there's no evidence stating they are. Seen as a generic term, justification has yet to be presented. User:SchmuckyTheCat has simply claimed they are. — Instantnood 05:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

only by semantics can you make either statement. It's an entirely silly argument. SchmuckyTheCat 17:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

PRC's offer to Taiwan

I have modified this section a bit, would someone please check it for NPOV and accuracy? Preferably someone more knowledgeable in the study of political science and law. Also, I have reviewed previous edits, and I found it rather funny that someone wrote that Taiwan would lose its multi-party governments and that a Taiwanese Communist party would be formed. From what I know, if Taiwan becomes an SAR the government system and parties will not be (or should not be) interfered by the PRC.

Hong Kong has its own democratic system and retained the whole government structure in 1997, I doubt that the PRC would revoke these privileges from Taiwan, especially if Taiwan's freedom rating is ranked higher than the one of the United States, and that Taiwanese citizens are extremely sensitive to human rights issues. What a riot that would be if the PRC started to interfere with how Taiwan's politics should work, and I doubt that the PRC would succeed in doing so. If the PRC does decide to do this, it would be imminent that Taiwan will start trying to be independent again, as the main reason that Taiwan would be convinced to reunite peacefully with the PRC would be that it increases economic trade and allows economic influence sharing (although not economic SYSTEM sharing, that would be still distinct and controlled by the individual regions of administration) and not that it allows the PRC to give Taiwan any better ways of governing, since it is very obvious that every region that has been governed a certain way cannot change in a blink of an eye. Although I do see possible PRC power swallowing, or even vice versa.

What I can see is that in the case of reunification, Taiwan will guard most of its freedoms because the PRC wouldn't dare try to revoke them in an attempt to avoid civil unrest or another independence attempt. If the PRC was so oppressive they would have already used other measures of unifying Taiwan. Sooner or later these SARs won't be needed anymore, because of power swallowing. Lets all hope all administrations move their governments towards the correct direction.  Dooga  ^Talk 06:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that seems to be missing from this section is any explanation for why Taiwan doesn't want to accept China's offer. The wording "However, the government of the Republic of China (ROC) that is governing Taiwan refuses to accept the offer." seems to suggest that Taiwan is just being stubborn. I'll try to think of better wording, but as for the reasons that Taiwanese refuse to surrender their sovereignty to China, I can think of many reasons I wouldn't do so, but I don't have any thing I can cite to say what reasons the Taiwanese have. Readin 05:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a sovereign nation, just because she controls her territory within her own boundaries does not make her a sovereign nation. The question is no sovereign, but administration and jurisdiction within a sovereign country called China, which is disputed at this moment.

The reference provided in the article does not state clearly how foreign diplomacy would be handled for the proposed Taiwan SAR. Foreign relations seem left out of the proposal. However, it does say the proposed Taiwan SAR would "retain" legislative powers, and one of the powers of the current Taiwan legislature is to make laws about relationships with other countries. On the other hand, it says Taiwan would need to send reprentatives to Beijing to discuss "national" affairs. Does anyone know of any sources that address how Taiwan would handle foreign affairs if it accepted the SAR proposal? Readin 05:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To Dooga: This discussion section isn't to discuss the feasibility or viability of such measures, this isn't a forum. Please talk about this in place more fitting than Wikipedia discussions. Thank you.

Typographical error?

re: this part:

The PRC has offered Taiwan a similar status to that of an SAR if it accepts mainland rule; however the Republic of China government refuses to accept the offer, and most polls indicate that only around 10 per cent of the Taiwanese electorate support it.

Should this not be:

The PRC has offered Taiwan a similar status to that of an SAR if it accepts mainland rule; however the Taiwan government refuses to accept the offer, and most polls indicate that only around 10 per cent of the Taiwanese electorate support it.

Otherwise it does not make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.73.134 (talk • contribs) 11:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Should be ROC government, and electorate of the ROC. — Instantnood 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should be RoC, which still claims legitimacy of rule over Mainland China, along with Mongolia and a few other pieces 66.183.37.77 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Rak

Freedom of Movement?

One thing this article does not discuss is the freedom of movement of Chinese citizens and SAR citizens. Can mainland Chinese live in Hong Kong and vice versa? The article makes the SARs sound like de facto independent countries only vaguely referring to 'immigration' policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation (reprise)

I believe the name of this article should be Special administrative region of the People's Republic of China or (perhaps) Special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China. I believe this on the following grounds:

1) Usual English usage is not to capitalise the first letters of common nouns. A common noun is defined as any noun other than the name of something that has a unique identity. As there are at least two special administrative regions (Macau and Hong Kong) and others have been at least discussed, it follows that the subject of this article is a common noun. Essentially the article is about a concept, not about a particular SAR.

2) Article 31 of the constitution of the Peoples Republic of China clearly agrees with me. As you can see here it says:

The state may establish special administrative regions when necessary. The systems to be instituted in special administrative regions shall be prescribed by law enacted by the National People's Congress in the light of the specific conditions.

3) Likewise the DECISION OF THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS ON THE BASIC LAW OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA agrees with me in quoting that clause of the constitution with exactly the same capitalisation.

Please don't be distracted by the capitalisation of the name Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China or for short Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Because there is only one of them, this is a proper noun and the different capitalisation in that case is correct.

I attempted to move the article, but was reverted by User:HongQiGong who requested I discuss the change first. So here it is. -- Starbois (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "special administrative region" may be a common noun, but what about "Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China"? Is that not a proper noun? Like for example: Vice President of the People's Republic of China, Vice Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, Chief Executive of Hong Kong, etc.

Here is the relevant bit of what WP has to say about proper nouns:

Proper nouns (also called proper names) are nouns representing unique entities (such as London, Jupiter or Johnny), as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities (such as city, planet or person). Proper nouns are not normally preceded by an article or other limiting modifier (such as any or some), and are used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have.

In English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, proper nouns are usually capitalized. ... The convention of capitalizing all nouns was previously used in English, but ended circa 1800.

As far as the examples you quote are concerned, I guess it depends whether you are actually using the name to refer to a specific individual holding the post, in which case caps are fine, or are referring in a more general way to the post itself, in which case they are not.

To quote some examples that is perhaps a little closer to special administrative regions, I'd point out the capitalisation in the following article titles:

• Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China
• Autonomous prefectures of China

which follows my suggestion. -- Starbois (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Excessive links

This page has a lot of links for the definition of general terms for features of a country. Do we really need a link for the standard definition of autonomy, government, postal system, legal system, and the like? They'd be useful if the links were to pages about how these features exist are are implemented in sar's, but the general definition just adds clutter to the article.

I'd edit them out myself, but I'm not sure there isn't a good reason for them (I'm don't do wiki's that much). Dstarfire (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"not part of Mainland China"

This is a rather bold statement that is provided, so far as I can tell, without sourcing. Can someone please supply a source that the SARs are not to be considered part of the People's Republic of China? A region can be autonomous and still be part of the country. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No doubt those SARs are part of PRC. Wonder where does this claim come from. SilAshkenazi (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Since 1 July 1997 mainland China ≠ PRC. GotR ^Talk 06:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll grant that. But are they part of the PRC? Because the article waffles on that, simply saying they fall under the 'sovereignty' of it. --Golbez (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the lede of the PRC article confirms it. GotR ^Talk 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tibet and Xinjian

Are there claim Special administrative region status for Tibet and Xinjian? --Kaiyr (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Speculation has no place here. Also have a look at WP:SPS which is part of WP:RS. Blogs are not reliable sources.Rincewind42 (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wolong

I'm wondering that if Wolong is one of the three S.A.Rs as it's a completely different region. It is ruled by forestry department and it has no independent government or colony issues. I think that it should not be classified with Hong Kong and Macau. -- unsigned comment by Tom1581

It is officially known as the (Wenchuan) Wolong Special Administrative Region, as pointed out by sources[7][8]. It is different from Hong Kong and Macau in that it is not provincial level and it does not follow the "One country, two systems" principle. However, it is still a SAR within the PRC, which needs to be mentioned in this article. --Cartakes (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No lease of Macau

Macau was never on a lease to Portugal, unlike most of Hong Kong (the New Territories) was to the UK, although the PRC didn't recognise any 'unfair and unequal treaties' signed before 1949. In 1976, Portugal redefined Macau as a Chinese territory under Portuguese administration, having earlier offered it back to China two years earlier.Quiensabe 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Portugal paid land rent to Qing dynasty for Macau for a very long period of time... Read up on history section of Macau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.241.222 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Portugal first bribed Ming Dynasty officers then paid land rent to Ming. Afterwards, Qing signed a treaty with Portugal which agrees Portugal may "occupy forever" on the land. This is a vague term, one may say it's rent one may say it's not.Xxjkingdom (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Call for Protection

• Stop adding Wolong to this page. Wolong and administrative units of her status (if there is any) should start its own page. The structure and status of Wolong is entirely different from Hong Kong and Macau. The later ones are autonomous/dependent territories with their own currencies, limited diplomatic status, flags, etc. It is possibly a vandalism as one wiki user alone is using wikipedia as a way to advertise his not widely acceptable belief. In order to stop this vandalism, I request a full protection to the site.Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, User:Xxjkingdom is the one who is trying to vandal the page. He claimed in the article that the PRC established several "Special Administrative Region" in Mainland China, which is definitely not the case. There are in fact three SARs in total within PRC, Hong Kong, Macau and Wolong SAR, with only one SAR (i.e. Wolong) within Mainland China. --Cartakes (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Xxjkingdom: There are already sources provided above to state that Wolong is a SAR. And please also stop claiming that the PRC established several SARs in Mainland China in the article. Have you noticed that you are in fact contradicting with yourself by saying Wolong is not a SAR and Wolong is one of the SARs in Mainland China at the same time. Clearly, you are the one who is messing things up. If you have dispute, discuss properly in the talk page instead of edit warring. Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Cartakes: I have not mentioned that PRC established several SARs in Mainland China in my latest edit. You are right in this case. You should stop messing up Wolong with Hong Kong and Macau as well. My latest edit has already show a portion to introduce Wolong and Sinuiju for reader's reference. Stop reverting my edit.Xxjkingdom (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not mess up Wolong with Hong Kong and Macau or changed the scope of this article. Before my edits to this article this article is already about the "Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China" (which is and was the bold text in the first sentence of the article). I merely added Wolong, another SAR of the PRC into the article. I already mentioned in the article that Wolong had a different nature than the Hong Kong and Macau, so I did not mess them up. There are simply two types of SARs within PRC, both types should be listed. In total there are three SARs in PRC. However, you added the SAR of North Korea to the article which essentially changed the scope of this article. So you are the one who is trying to change the scope of the article without any discussion. Furthermore, you have already violated the Wikipedia:3RR policy of Wikipedia by reverting 4 times of this article today. --Cartakes (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop claiming SARs as provincial level administrative unit. SARs are neither province nor provincial level. None of the provinces share similarity in the level of autonomy and status as the SARs. For example, can any provincial level administrative unit in any country of the world has their own Olympic team and can participate in numerous International Organization as an individual member? "Provincial Level" is not an official term and could not be found in either the Chinese Constitution or the HK and Macau Basic Laws. Thus, it is more appropriate to treat SARs as special cases, special cases directly responsible to the Central Government, as stated on the Chinese Constitution Article 31, or simply change the term "provincial-level" to "First-level" to avoid further confusion. It is like Guam neither a state nor state-level and Gibraltar neither a kingdom nor kingdom-level.Xxjkingdom (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You, please stop claiming that SARS are not provincial level units. I am telling you that I am 100% sure you are wrong about this. Provincial-level division does not simply mean provinces. Provinces, as well as autonomous regions (e.g. Xinjiang and Tibet AR), state-controlled cities (e.g. Beijing) and SARs (HK and Macau) are all provincial-level divisions. Assuming you can understand Chinese, please look at the following page: 中华人民共和国行政区划, which says:

目前中国有34个省级行政区，包括23个省、5个自治区、4个直辖市、2个特别行政区。

English translation:

Currently China has 34 provincial-level divisions, including 23 provinces, 5 Autonomous Regions, 4 state-controlled cities and 2 Special Autonomous Regions.

Since Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, we are going to write articles based on sources, not assertions. If you want more sources, I can add more. But again I am telling you now I am 100% sure you are wrong about this. --Cartakes (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, that is just a website, not back up by Constitution or Treaty. If you would like to prove your word, you are welcomed to show us the Constitution and Treaty that could back up your claim. Second, you cannot rely solely on the Communist government's word when interpreting affairs that have international background, because they could be bias and Communist-centric. For example, you cannot claim Taiwan is a province as if what the Communist has claimed, because they would ignore the de jure and de facto existence of the Nationalist. Also, you cannot claim Diaoyu Island is a Chinese territory simply based on the Communist advocation, because they would ignore the de jure and de facto existence of Japan. The Chinese Communist government claims Hong Kong Pan-democracy camp are "Anti China Anti Hong Kong's gang" and "traitors to Han Chinese", yet it does not meet a neutral standard to adopt the communist claim, as they receive wide support from Hong Kong citizens, and are patriotic in their ways. For Hong Kong and Macau affairs, they are backed up by international treaties including the Sino-British and Sino-Portuguese Joint Declarations. SARs establishment is based on Joint Declarations, Chinese Constitution, and the Basic Laws together. While none of these documents claims that SARs are provincial level, and no joint agreement was established since then, simply relying on source from the Communist that published after the establishment of the above documents, and ignore the de facto and de jure situation in Hong Kong and Macau, as well as the opinions from the international (for example, the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act treated HK with a status higher than ordinary provinces) is unfair and not politically neutral. It is because Communist government is not the sole party to the affair. Therefore, source from the Communist point can only show the view of the communist government towards Hong Kong and Macau, something closer to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China than an objective point of view, but ignore the de jure international background and the de facto different nature and status of the SARs, when compared with province. Meanwhile, my suggestion of replacing the term "provincial-level" with "first level", does not only politically neutral, it also totally fits the Chinese Communist's claim of "一级地方行政区域" (First level administrative region). Therefore, there is no point to blame the term "First Level" as it is by now a fair and accurate term to all parties. It is suggested that "First Level" is a better term to use.Xxjkingdom (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

First, you must note that according to Wikipedia:RS, Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. The source given above is a government website, which at least shows that PRC does consider that the SARs as provincial level divisions. On the other hand, the book "Microregionalism and Governance in East Asia" by Katsuhiro Sasuga (Page 44) clearly states that the two SARs are provincial-level (it says "The country is divided into four kinds of provincial-level administrative regions (22 provinces; 5 autonomous regions; 4 municipalities; and 2 special administrative regions, excluding Taiwan)". This is an example of reliable secondary source (there are many more such sources), which is what Wikipedia is based on. On contrast, Constitution and Treaty are primary sources, which are used in Wikipedia only in certain cases. In the cases there are sources conflicts, such as the case of Taiwan, we handle them according to the instruction of WP:RS (that is why we say PRC claimed Taiwan as a province in Wikipedia). Second, "provincial-level" is consistent with other terms such as "Prefectural level" and "County level", which are all used in relevant articles to denote the level of administrative divisions within China. Don't push the term "First-level" when terms such as "Second-level" and "Third-level" are not found. As mentioned earlier, "provincial-level" does not simply mean provinces, but at the same level as provinces. Actually your logic is very flawed: if SARs like Hong Kong are first-level divisions just like other provinces as shown in Template:Province-level divisions of China, then it means SARs are in fact in the same level as these provinces (no matter how autonomous they are), so SARs are provincial-level too. This contradicts with your claim that SARs are not provincial-level. Third, you may be WP:Bold to change articles contents such as Administrative divisions of China, but when your edits got reverted, please follow the WP:BRD cycle to properly discuss the situation instead of edit wars. Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, keep calm. This is a discussion, not a conflict. You last point may apply to you and me, which forms a good point. For your first point, as I have mentioned above, your source reflects only the view of the communist government and pro-communist scholars. Because the term "provincial level" is not written on the three legal pillars of the SARs： the international declarations, Chinese constitution, and the SARs' Basic Laws. It is necessary to respect views from different perspectives in this case, because "provincial level" is just the view and judgement of one of the several parties involved in this matter. Second, "first level" is different from "provincial level". "First level" highlights the common ground of the provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities, and SARs. The common ground is that they are the first tier administrative units, directly under the central government, as stated in the Chinese Constitution Article 30 for provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities and Basic Laws Article 12 for the SARs. Meanwhile, "provincial level" does not focus on the common ground, but treat others as if they are "something like a province". For we know, province has particular characteristics, with being the first tier administrative units only one of the characteristics. Other implications including being a region as normal administrative unit, a region without limited independent foreign affairs, without the right to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, etc. This is not what the SARs are, de jure and de facto. It is subjective to call all sovereign states "Empire level" simply because there are sovereign states like the British Empire are empire. Wouldn't it be an insult to the republics and other forms of sovereign states? We cannot name China an "Empire-level" unit. I guess we all agree with this. A more fair term should be drawn from the common ground of all the sovereign states to name the level. For your other point that without second level, there could not be a term first level, in my humble opinion, it is unnecessary to have second or third level to have a first level when it comes to this case, because it is a technical term, and a technical term reflects the legal basis, the factual situation, as well as accepted by all parties. Even if you insist, it is still better to change sub-provincial to second level (and etc.) than to change first level to a controversial "provincial level" term, which remains a biased term only reflecting the view of the communist government, and ignores the perspective of the people. Xxjkingdom (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I can understand what you say, and your recent change in Hong Kong works fine for me so I won't revert it either. However, I think you have misunderstood the WP:RS policy. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. Documents such as international declarations, Chinese constitution and the SARs' Basic Laws are all primary sources. You label the source given above (the book "Microregionalism and Governance in East Asia" by Katsuhiro Sasuga (Page 44)) as "pro-communist scholar", which is definitely not the case. If this source is in fact "pro-communist", then it should say something like "PRC has 23 provinces" instead of "PRC has 22 provinces", as the source does not count Taiwan as a province of PRC, so it is not pro-communist. Since Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources like this one, it is enough to include "provincial-level" with this source. If you want to consider it biased or controversial, you need to find another reliable source which says the opposite (i.e. not provincial-level). Such a source is not yet provided by now. By the way, even if the Chinese constitution explicitly says SARs are provincial-level, you will still label the constitutions as reflecting only the view of the communist government according to your logic, so it won't work either. As for "first level", even though it works in principle (especially when it is consistent with other terms), but since the change of term(s) will involve a lot of relevant WP articles, I highly recommend to archive a consensus by the community before making such changes, such as in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. Thanks for your understanding. --Cartakes (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved per consensus.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Special administrative region → Special administrative regions of China – See discussion on talk page. Consensus appears to be in support of rename and merge of Special administrative region (Republic of China) into new page. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Page move proposal

I propose renaming this article to Special administrative regions of China. My reasoning for this is:
1. Some other nations have their own 'special administrative regions' (one inspired by the Chinese SARs exists in North Korea and is the primary basis for this side of the argument) or may use similar terminology to refer to select administrative divisions.
2. The proposed name is consistent with the article names for other Chinese administrative divisions (i.e. Administrative divisions of China, Provinces of China, Autonomous regions of China, etc.). Pluralisation of the article name is also highly important as there is definitely more than one SAR in China and it keeps consistency with the other articles.

I personally believe the current article name is too general, and the proposed name is not only keeps consistency with other similar articles, it also removed any possible confusion with any other regions referred to by a similar name. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with this proposal. However, I am wondering if the SARs in Special administrative region (Republic of China) should be included in Special administrative regions of China too? Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally see no reason to not include SARs from the ROC on the mainland under a "History" subheading similar to the Provinces of China article. This has the added bonus of also reducing clutter between similarly named articles. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Are there other regions named in "Special administrative regions"? It is better NOT to move this moment. It is better get clear of common terminology. — HenryLi (Talk)

• Minor Oppose Going by WP:Common Name I think that it should stay as is for now. The other two uses of the phrase are both defunct and minor whereas the "one china, two systems" arrangement is significant. One sees frequently "SAR" after "Hong Kong" and "Macau". I also note the discussion above about whether SARs exist in Mainland China. (Another question for another time: Why not merge One country, two systems into this article, or this into that? They seem to be on same topic, just using different verbiage.)--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support rename and some merging. There is no WP:COMMONNAME problem; it still contains "Special administrative region"; the "of China" is a natural disambiguation and a consistency tweak. It does make sense to cover the historical RoC SARs in the same article, and I also agree that at least aspects of One country, two systems can be merged here. There might be is an argument for a separate article on that as a political policy issue, but the way the articles are presently written, at least the majority some of the material overlaps, and they can be safely merged. Encyclopedically, the SARs are of more importance and notability that the policy processes by which they're administered, so the relevant OCTS material should merge into Special administrative regions of China and only be summarized at the other article, per WP:SUMMARY. Finally, Special administrative region can safely redirect here, since all we'll need at that point is a one-item disambiguation hatnote, per WP:TWODAB: {{Redirect|Special administrative region|the SAR in Korea|Sinuiju Special Administrative Region}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Revised: The OCTS article seems more stand-alone now as a constitutional law article than before.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons of clarity and consistency, as described by the nominator. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - (uninvolved editor) The proposed renaming is perfectly natural and makes the topic clearer. The merging of the SAR (ROC) article as the "history" of the concept is also reasonable. However, the idea of merging of One country, two systems goes a bit too far, and should not be done as part of this RfC. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support renaming and merging with Special administrative region (Republic of China), but not with One country, two systems. --Cartakes (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a move or a merge. The historical ROC and current PRC SARs having nothing in common except a name and that they were or are in China so there is no reason for a merge. The primary topic of "Special administrative region" is this article so there is no need for a move. North Korea's Sinuiji SAR is a minor case and, as User:SMcCandlish notes above, can be dealt with with a hatnote. —  AjaxSmack  03:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wolong

There is no doubt that the Wolong SAR is not a SAR established according to Article 31 of the Constitution, but the article already mentions that only HK and Macau are established according to the said Article of the Constitution. For Wolong, we simply need to make it clear in the article that it is a different type of SARs from Hong Kong and Macau, but it still need to be mentioned in the article, which lists ALL SARs in the History of China, which includes ROC SARs such as Chahar SAR (in the "History" section) too. --Cartakes (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Emblem of People’s Militia.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)