Template talk:Province-level divisions of China

Manchuria

Is there any reason why the "Manchurian" box for Liaoning, Jilin & Heilongjiang still needs to exist? As of now it's basically an eyesore on those pages. ran 02:37, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's redundant. Please remove it if it hasn't been already. --Jiang 00:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a Province of China

The PRC does not and has never controlled Taiwan. Taiwan has it's own democratically elected, sovereign government.

I would agree with you. However, the template simply says that it is claimed, which is undisputed. The fact of whether it is actually part of China is neatly avoided with the claimed label. Stargate70 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

--It's disputed by the United States of America, which does not recognize the PRC claim over Taiwan. By including Taiwan under "Provinces," this template is accepting the PRC claim and denies the ROC claim over Taiwan and is, therefore, not neutral. I have added a more neutral "Territorial Dispute" section to the Template.

The PRC's instrumentality says Taiwan is a province of PRC so we need to state the fact. Of course that claim is disputed needs to be stated too. I fail to see how this is not neutral. The US POV is not better than anyone else's POV. Have you considered the UN POV?

The label of territorial dispute is not satisfactory. The whole of mainland China is also disputed territory as it is claimed by the constitution of the ROC.--pyl (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

--All I've done is reflect on this template the same as the Taiwan template which lists Mainland China as a territorial dispute. Should we then change the Taiwan template to include the fact that Taiwan claims all of Mainland China? Or should we change the ROC template to include all the provinces of Mainland China as claimed by the ROC? Which should be used as the standard?

The Taiwan template lists mainland China as disputed territory? Please let me have the link, as I am unable to find it. Meanwhile, I believe you, and I have only clarified PRC's claim on Taiwan as a province. It is important for Wikipedia to tell the claim without endorsing any view.--pyl (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

--The Taiwan link was being directed to Taiwan, the Province of the PRC; that's POV. I have instead directed it to the island itself, void of any political bias. I have also added a few other territorial disputes that the PRC has with other countries, listed alphabetically.

---Someone keeps changing the Taiwan link to the PRC article on Taiwan; that is not a discussion on the territorial dispute between the PRC and the ROC. That link describes the PRC's view on the status of Taiwan. However, to address the concern of the person who changed the link to the PRC Taiwan Province article, I have added a new link next to Taiwan called "Legal Status of Taiwan". This way, all the important viewpoints are shown, the ROC, the PRC and those who want Taiwan Independence.

Using "PRC" in the title

The only result of using "PRC" is a revert war; just take a look at the East Asia box. There is NO WAY whatsoever that an agreement can EVER, EVER be reached over whether to include Taiwan in a box entitled People's Republic of China. Eventually the box will be frozen just like the East Asia one, on one side's favour, and out goes NPOV and cooperation.

As such, I think the only possible way is to use a term like "Mainland", "Nei-di", or some other term that clearly, unambiguously, and undisputably does not refer to HK, Macao, or Taiwan. That's the only way IMO to avoid this box from devolving into chaos.

-- ran 12:02, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Ran,

I have no intention of getting on with a 'revert war', but I have to point out that Hong Kong & Macau have been part of Mainland China for years with "Province-level division" status, and thus it's a glaring omission to leave out the two special administrative regions from the navigation box. Would you consider an internal link to Special Administrative Regions, without mentioning HK or Macau ?

I wasn't here when the East Asia box got frozen, so I really don't know how bad things can get here. I'll take your word for it. But I am not aware of any "Taiwan" debate between edits from 06:06, 16 May 2004 to 15:38, 21 May 2004. (Five days !) So, I think you are worrying too much. Take it easy, pal !

199.71.174.100 02:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

HK, Macau (and POV, Taiwan) are all parts of the PRC, but they're NOT part of the Mainland! "Mainland" is a politically-neutral term, it is NOT equal to "PRC", and that's why I like using it -- it avoids a repeat of what happened in the East Asia box. And I think this box is fine as it is -- as long as we set the box title to "Mainland" and not even talk about non-Mainland areas at all, then there can't be any political disputes.

Oh -- and take a look at the history of the East Asia box. I wasn't there either when it happened, but I certainly don't want it to happen again! Five days is a rather long time -- but that's exactly how long it took me to notice this box and edit it. If it were someone else more extremist, then you'd be in a revert war right now as we speak! ;) So no, I don't think I'm worring too much.

-- ran 13:44, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

The East Asia box revert war had nothing to do with Taiwan. It was over the inclusion of Vietnam and Mongolia. Usage on wikipedia of the terms "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" has been limited to the territory each administers. Then we define China to be Greater China and not just the PRC. So far, there have been no vocally pro-PRC or pro-independence users around to dispute this usage. A revert war over whether to include the SAR is more likely (just happened) than one over Taiwan since the latter is so obviously POV and no one would dare insert it. See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). --Jiang 22:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The word "administrative" should add subtle implication. No PRC administration exists for Taiwan. --Jiang 22:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

With the box in this present form, a vicious, ugly debate and revert war is basically inevitable. There are a lot of people who are not going to appreciate the "subtle implication" of the word "administrative", and who are certainly going to "dare" to add Taiwan to this box the moment they notice this. -- ran 23:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Let's wait for the crisis to happen before we try to resolve the crisis. Let's not create another crisis while trying to resolve this one. There are many other places on wikipedia where revert wars should have happened by now if we had people loyal to the PRC trying to enforce the party line. --Jiang 00:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Province-level divisions

Jiang, why do you insist on calling it Province-level divisions when it really links to Political divisions of China. And I don't just see provinces here. I see Autonomous Regions, Municipalities, and Special Administrative Regions. If I don't get a sound argument against, I will change it to Political divisions. Sorry if this sounds like a threat... I learned that from you. --Cantus 02:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Notice that it states Province-level, not simply provinces (so yes, theyre not all provinces, but province level). We don't simply call it "political divisions" because we've left out the Prefecture-level cities, Prefectures, Autonomous prefectures, leagues, counties, Districts, County-level cities, Autonomous counties, banners, etc. We would then have to specify that the municipalities listed are centrally administered and on provincial. What's wrong with stating they're province level? It all fits in the designated space. --Jiang 02:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about Main political divisions? By the way, who is we? --Cantus 02:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"We" is ambiguous. Interpret as you like. We use it in our writing in order to make the reader think they're one of us in order to connect with the reader (for obvious reasons). I think "Main" sounds funny and can be interpreted differently. "Province-level" is more specific. --Jiang 05:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you tell me which province does Hong Kong belong to? None. It is very confusing to call this box "Province-level divisions". If I don't get a sound argument against I will change it. --Cantus 06:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If Hong Kong belonged to another province, it wouldn't be province-level anymore, now would it?

Every division you see in the box is at the same level as a province. "Province-level" (省级 shěngjí) is the normal and accepted way of describing this arrangement. -- ran 08:13, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yet Hong Kong isn't a province and it's not thought of as a province. This box is very confusing. --Cantus 20:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not a pronvince. It province level. Do you get it? We never called it a province. --Jiang 22:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's neither a province nor a provincial level. None of the provinces share similarity in the level of autonomy and status as the SARs. "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, as stated on the Chinese Constitution Article 31, or simply change the term "provincial-level" to "First-level" to avoid further confusion.Xxjkingdom (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a provincial-level as shown by reliable sources in Talk:Special administrative region. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. As mentioned there, "provincial-level" does not simply mean provinces, but at the same level as provinces, similar to other terms such as "Prefectural level" and "County level". "Provincial-level" is consistent with these terms, which are all used in relevant articles. Don't push the term "First-level" when terms such as "Second-level" and "Third-level" are not found. Actually your logic is very flawed: if SARs like Hong Kong are first-level divisions just like other provinces as shown in the template, 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. You are the one to make bold edits, and got reverted. Please follow the WP:BRD cycle to properly discuss instead of edit warring. Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ed Template

Jiang: is there any particular reason you removed Template:ed from the box? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 17:25, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's ugly. We already know where to go to edit this page. The "go" button on the left is not hard to use. I also want to avoid linking to a section in the middle of an article, as is done for the link "province-level". --Jiang 21:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Go" button? I think I'm missing something here... what are you talking about? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 22:41, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Where the search button is. --Jiang 23:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is just an opinion, but to figure out the exact name of the template, you HAVE to look at the wikisource. This is loading a whole new page. Then you have to find and copy the name of the template, and then edit your browser's address field to go to the template's page and THEN you have to click in the template's edit button to FINALLY edit the template. These are too many unnecessary steps. Using the "Go" button in this case is probably the least recommended option. --Cantus 00:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the link colorless? Otherwise, we could do something like is done at Template:vfd, but the arrow given for external links fmt stands out too much. --Jiang 01:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Old template is better"

What about it is better? --Cat out 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan is Taiwan

Someone keeps changing the Taiwan link to the Province of the PRC. Odd since even the PRC has taken a more nuanced approach to Taiwan than simply considering it a Province. I guess it's going to take some time before Mainlanders get over their brainwashing and come to understand that nuanced approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is a real place that has nothing to do with the PRC. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a province-level division of the PRC that has no real physical reality. The two are totally different concepts. Since this article is about "Province-level divisions of the People's Republic of China", the political concept rather than the real place should be linked to. Readin (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This template lists the provincial-level divisions of PRC. The Taiwan Province is a province-level division of PRC. The fact that PRC has no control of the island is claried by a note. I also removed 'territorial disputes', which did not deal with province-level divisions. --Soman (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The ROC claims Mainland China. Shall we include all Provinces of Mainland China in the ROC template as well? And you're right, this does include all the Provinces in China. And as the legal status of Taiwan link shows, that's disputed. To include Taiwan under Provinces instead of Territorial dispute is a singular POV: that of the PRC only. Including it under Territorial Dispute is NPOV as it shows all interested parties' LEGAL arguments, not just propaganda; the CPC's, the KMT's or the DPP's.

I thought ROC had disbanded their 'exile governments' for the mainland provinces. If not, it would very well be possible to include them in the Template:Administrative_divisions_of_the_Republic_of_China. The point is not whether PRC or ROC excersizes full control of an area, but which divisions exist in the state apparatus. If a 'phantom province' elects MPs and has a representation in government, then it should be included in the template. There is a mix-up in many articles, articles such as Anhui covers both the history as ROC province and PRC province. Not sure whether the solution would be to create 2 completly separate sets of province articles. --Soman (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The ROC has indeed come closer to embracing the future rather than hanging on to the imperial past the way the PRC does (although the current administration seems to be moving back toward imperial thinking).

The point of this template is the government structure. It should include the fictional Taiwan Province that the China has established in its government structures. At the same time, we should avoid the misleading implication that Taiwan is currently controlled by China. A tiny asterisk far removed from the clarification is insufficient. The information that Taiwan is merely claimed, along with the link, should be right next to link to "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China".

As for whether there should be a section called "territorial disputes", I don't have a strong preference. Readin (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If the asterix is to small, perhaps there's another way to clarify the situation. Maybe like this "Taiwan (PRC has no control over Taiwan. See Legal status of Taiwan.)" in the template. As per territorial disputes, I think the row can be excluded, since none of the other entities (South Tibet and the various islands) constitute province-level administrations. PRC considers all of these areas as parts of larger provinces/regions. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a province of the PRC. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a province-level division of the PRC government. Do not link this to "Taiwan". Taiwan has nothing to do with the PRC. Readin (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the page to how it was before the discussion started. Please do not edit the page until we get a consensus for change here. We're all on the edge of WP:3RR problems. Readin (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is no more a Province of the PRC as Puerto Rico is a State in the Union (read: USA). Under 'Political divisions of the United States', Puerto Rico is classified as an Insular Area as approriate to it's political reality. The same should be done with Taiwan. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is to reflect political reality, not political propaganda. Political reality: Taiwan, ROC. Political propaganda: Taiwan, Province of PRC.

Have you looked at the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China article? Readin (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are countries that recognize Taiwan, ROC as a sovereign nation. But there are no countries except the PRC that accepts Taiwan as 'Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China,' though they do pay lip service to the "One China" policy. What about Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China isn't a political fabrication and PRC propaganda? Where in the world is it ever taught or told that Taiwan is a Province of the PRC except in the PRC? All I'm asking is for the template to reflect political reality that is accepted by the world.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China indicates that it is only a political structure and that China doesn't actually control Taiwan. In fact China hasn't controlled Taiwan for more than 5 of the last 100 years. That's why it is important to link to the political structure rather than to the actual place. The real place, the place that exists, is Taiwan, and Taiwan has nothing to do with China. Linking to the real place would suggest that it is part of the PRC. It is not and never has been. Readin (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Then we should link to Taiwan, ROC, the political reality. Otherwise, shouldn't we rename the Puerto Rico article, "Puerto Rico, Unincorporated area of the USA"? Because, that's what it is. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is PRC propaganda, pure and simple.

Try to sign your posts (and preferably, register an account). There has been lengthy discussions at the talk page of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China regarding the shape of that article. I think those issues are solved now. Not sure what the Puerto Rico analogy is meant for. US-PR relations and PRC-ROC relations are actually rather different. --Soman (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Territorial disputes section

Hello! I think that the line "Taiwan (see Legal status of Taiwan)" should be appended to the end the Provinces section, as it is considered a province, albeit a claimed one. The other entries in the "Territorial disputes" section actually belong to many of the other entries in the province and autonomous region sections. For example, Kinmen and Matsu Islands are claimed as part of Fujian Province. The Paracels and the Spratlys as part of the Hainan Province. South Tibet and the Four Villages of the Western Section (Demchok) as part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The Pratas Islands as part of the Guangdong Province. The Senkaku Islands, Penghu Islands, Taiwan and minor outlying islands as part of the claimed Taiwan Province. Geographically speaking, all of the above entries should be listed under the Territorial disputes section, and the entry for Taiwan directed to the geographical article about the island of Taiwan, with separate entries for the Penghu Islands. However this template seems to present a political view of subdivisions of the country. Thus, I think it would be logical to remove all entries in the Territorial disputes section (as they would have all been covered in the Province and Autonomou Region articles listed above), also appending Taiwan to the end of the Province section, linking to the article on the political subdivision "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China", followed by the "see Legal status" note. --Shibo77 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are special administrative regions province-level?

Point (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China talks only about provinces, autonomous regions and "municipalities directly under the Central Government". (Special administrative regions are provided for in Article 31.) The Provisions of the State Council on Administration of Administrative Division mentioned nothing about special administrative regions. The same is true with the Regulations on the Handling of Boundary Disputes between Administrative Areas, and the Regulations on Administration of Administrative Boundaries. The Circular of the State Council concerning the Abbreviation of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Its Place in the Order of Precedence in the National Administrative Division said nothing about the level of special administrative region. There is, therefore, no known source from legal or constitutional materials to classify special administrative regions as province-level divisions. 14.0.144.97 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Administrative levels and divisions of the People's Republic of China sidebar which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)