Talk:Former capitals of Chinese provinces

The other Nationalist Governments

Here we are recognizing only Chiang Kai-shek's government over Hu Hanmin's government or Wang Jingwei's government. Is this appropriate? It looks like a case of victors writing the history pov to me. --Jiang 08:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but if we listed all of the regimes that have ever existed in the past 600+ years, the situation would quickly become unmanageable here... -- ran (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Those regimes proclaimed new dynasties (new states) as opposed to a rival government to the existing state. Here we are speaking of a single state, the Republic of China. It seems odd that we would list Guangzhou and Chongqing as capitals in 1949, while leaving out Wuhan in 1927, Guangzhou ?-1927, Nanjing 1927 (article lists as beginning in 1928, after Beijing fell), and more importantly, the Nanjing government of Wang Jingwei under Japanese rule (which nominally controlled large amounts of territory). Then are we listing only capitals with some sort of recognition instead? The page states outright that capitals are list "regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy aocorded to them by historians". --Jiang 01:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Tibet (Dalai Lama's realm??)

I know it's a sensitive topic, but at least the two entries of Tibet should be put in the same row for consistency?? Many parts of China have proclaimed themselves or been proclaimed as independent then or later, but I don't see any of those separate states having their own row in the table. --Sumple 04:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

SARs vs cities

It makes sense to exclude municipalities and SARs because they are cities, *in the ordinary sense of the English word*. Instandnood contends that SARs may contain no cities or multiple cities. This is true; however:

1. Currently both SARs are cities or metropolitan areas. This is why they are excluded from the list.

2. If there was an SAR with more than one cities or none at all, which there isn't, then the case would be stated differently. For example, if Taiwan became an SAR, then it would be listed in the list with capital Taipei. In any case, the creation of any new SARs is too contingent to speculate upon.

3. As to SARs containing no cities: equally, provinces do not have to contain cities. However, the prospect of having either a province or an SAR containing no urban centres of administration is too remote to consider.

It's okay to separate out SARs and explain that they, legally, do not have to be cities or a single city. However, your last edit did not make it clear why SARs and municipalities are excluded. As to "present SARs", that implies the existence of "past SARs", which is not true, or "future SARs", which is too remote: WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Sumple (Talk) 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a special adminsitrative region has a capital is not related to its status as a special administrative region. Special administrative regions do not have to be cities, neither of the existing special administrative regions defines the entirety or any part of itself as city. — Instantnood 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing the reference to SARs without giving serious consideration to what I have stated above. If the above comment is too long to read, here's the short two line version:

1. the reason the municipalites and the SARs are not in the list, is because they happen to be cities. It is not because they are municipalities and SARs.
2. the word city has an ordinary meaning in ordinary English. the English language is not defined by the laws and administrative regulations of the People's Republic of China.

If you feel there is an error in this reasoning, please address these instead of repeating yourself. --Sumple (Talk) 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the matter here Sumple. I wish the whole thing can be as simple, but I'm afraid it's not. Zhíxiáshì (municipalities directly under the central government) extend far beyond urban areas (that's what city means according to geographical definitions). The most exterme one is Chongqing, which covers an area larger than the shěng (provinces) of Hainan and and the zìzhìqū (autonomous regions) of Ningxia, and has non-contiguous urban areas. Zhíxiáshì don't have shěnghùi or shóufǔ simply because they are zhíxiáshì.

According to the 1982 Constitution special administrative regions (SARs) can be anything, big and small. It just happens that the two existing ones are both small in terms of area. Whether the two existing SARs have capitals or not is too troublesome to be discussed here (we are having long discussion on that). Whether Hong Kong is one urban area or many urban areas is again another matter for discussion. But afterall SARs are beyond the same hierarchy of shěng, zìzhìqū and zhíxiáshì. — Instantnood 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep I understand your point. I guess it's not that much of a big deal. The reason I prefer this version is that it briefly explains why we are excluding municipalities and SArs from this list is because they do not have (clear-cut/defined) capitals. Perhaps there is a way to rephrase this so that 1. it is made clear that these areas are excluded because they do not have capitals/historical capitals, and 2. they are either cities or metropolitan areas. --Sumple (Talk) 00:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think elaboration is necessary for zhíxiáshì. They have no shěnghùi or shóufǔ simply because they are zhíxiáshì. Chongqing isn't entirely urban, nor is it one metropolitan area. As for Hong Kong and Macao, IMHO what we elaborate is that they're beyond the same hierarchy. Whether Hong Kong's capital is "clear-cut" or "defined" is way too troublesome to mention in this article, at least not until the lengthy discussion elsewhere got some directions. What we can do to improve base on these two versions [1]? — Instantnood 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is, if you don't elaborate at all people will be wondering why SARs are excluded. As with municipalities, although to a lesser extent because municipalities by definition are "free towns". Perhaps Excluded are municipalities, which centre on the city after which they are named, and SARs, which do not have defined capitals/which do not fall in the same hierarchy. --Sumple (Talk) 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What hierarchy is that? SchmuckyTheCat 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Zhíxiáshì might be perhaps perceived as "free towns" or "independent cities", but they're not that comparable. Zhíxiáshì of the PRC extend much much further beyond limits of urban areas, to some extent like unitary authorities. The special administrative regions are another story, and the case of Hong Kong is much more complicated. — Instantnood 19:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Municipality, by definition, means a town which is not subordinate to a lord. In the case of China, this means not being subordinate to a province. Regardless of what these places are administratively, the reason they are excluded from the list is because they don't have well defined capital cities. Do we agree on that point at least? --Sumple (Talk) 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The four zhíxiáshì (in fact also true for many dìjíshì) of the PRC extend much further beyond limits of urban area, i.e. they're not merely towns. If you've briefly glance through the edit history of this article, you'd know the problem with Hong Kong is that whether the City of Victoria should be considered its capital. There have been debates across several talk pages. As for Macao, I'm not sure if "Cidade do Santo Nome de Deus de Macau, Não há outra mais Leal" or the "Concelho de Macau" had ever been considered the territory's capital. What is true is that there's no provision on whether special administrative regions would or wouldn't have capitals. — Instantnood 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What is true is that there is no authoritative definition on wha is the capital of the SARs, if any. --Sumple (Talk) 03:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Special administrative regions are not cities. — Instantnood 12:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)