Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by population

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hong Kong and Macao

This list was started with the figures of Hong Kong and Macao provided and presented as relevant information. They were not ranked together with those listed. Edits by user:Alanmak effectively disregarded the fact that they're not within the administrative division system as prescribed by the Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution. The statistics are also compiled differently. — Instantnood 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The SAR's are provided for in Article 31 of the 1982 Constitution. As far as statistics compilation goes, as long as Hong Kong and Macau are able to provide figures, they *should* be ranked, just like how we rank them among another subdivisions in area, highest point, life expectancy, literacy, and natural growth rate. The only reason they are excluded in the GDP rankings is because the currency is different and not easily convertible. -- ran (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to find out any constitutional and/or legal evidence that special administrative regions are administrative divisions. Yes the constitutional and legal basis of their establishment is provided for in the Article 31, but nowhere in the 1982 Constitution, nor in either of the two basic laws, mentions they're administrative divisions, in the way Article 30 does. This list started with such differences acknowledged. Any change to how they're presented is related to how the fact they're different is presented, and is related to the need to ensure neutrality towards different points of view. — Instantnood 00:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What different points of view? What's the "other" point of view? That Hong Kong and Macau are not administrative divisions of the People's Republic of China? What are they then? How would this "other" point of view interpret Article 12 of the Basic Law? -- ran (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If they're administrative divisions, where is it mentioned, in a manner comparable to Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution? Article 12 of both the Hong Kong and the Macao basic laws say " local administrative region ", not administrative divisions. Even if they were administrative divisions, there's obviously no provision that they're comparable to, and are placed at the same level as autonomous regions, municipalities and provinces. — Instantnood 09:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between "local administrative region" and "local administrative division"?

Why don't we get straight to the point? What is your interpretation of Articles 30 and 31 of the Constitution, and Article 12 of the Basic Law? What are Hong Kong and Macau? Are they sovereign states? Vassal states? Puppet states? What are they? -- ran (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What we have to figure is, according to constitutional and legal documents, whether or not special administrative regions are administrative divisions. Even if they were, we have to figure out if there is any provision that they're comparable to, and are placed at the same level with autonomous region, municipalities and provinces. If they're not prescribed as such, then they do not belong. What they are is irrelevant to the discussion here, I'm afraid. — Instantnood 12:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant. Why do you think the SARs are not included? What are their statuses, in your POV, that makes it unsuitable to include them? -- ran (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence to say special administrative regions, as according to Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution, or the existing special administrative regions, as according to Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution and Article 12 in both basic laws, are administrative divisions. — Instantnood 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

wtf are they then? You've avoided answering that question three times. An administrative division is a generic term for a sub-division of a larger organization. This semantic game you're playing on the talk page is silly, and the revert war you've got going on for the article itself is just plain rude. SchmuckyTheCat 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Article 30 of the Constitution explicitly states that province (shěng), autonomous regions (zìzhìqū), municipalities directly under the Central People's Government (zhíxiáshì), cities (shì), counties (xiàn), autonomous prefectures (zìzhìzhōu), etc., are administrative divisions. This is not the case for the special administrative regions (cf. Article 31). Why don't they explicitly state what they are in the Constitution? If there's no legal and/or constitutional evidence to tell what they are, then am I in a position to tell what they actually are? And in what way is what they are relevant to the discussion here? The only thing we have to tell is that whether they are administrative divisions. As there's no such evidence, we cannot assume they are, and present them as such. — Instantnood 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrative division is a generic term for an administrative region within a country — on an arbitrary level below that of the sovereign state. SchmuckyTheCat 20:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a generic term on one hand, but also official designation on the other. From the official designation perspective, they're not explicitly stated to be, as provinces, autonomous regions, counties, etc. do. From the generic term perspective, whether they are or are not is subject to different points of view. — Instantnood 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, under our article for the generic term it lists SARs as examples. We should have some consistency. (Watch your next edit is to remove that). SchmuckyTheCat 22:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

How did you jump to the conclusion that it's being used as a generic term? — Instantnood 22:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Revelatory hallucinations. SchmuckyTheCat 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood, since you cannot tell us what Hong Kong and Macau are exactly, could you give some possibilities as to what they might be? I.e., in accordance with the PRC Constitution as well as the Basic Laws, what other possibilities could HK and Macau be, if they are not administrative divisions?

(Note that I use the word, "possibility". In other words, there is nothing in the PRC constitution, nor the Basic Laws, nor international treaties etc., that contradict the idea that HK and Macau are administrative divisions. I'm asking: what are the other possible statuses that HK and Macau might also have, that are also not contradicted by the constitution, Basic Laws, and international treaties?)-- ran (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There are always many different possibilities, dependent territories, self-governing territories, autonomous territories, special entities…, you name it. What we can be sure is that they're not sovereign states, and, according to Article 12 in both basic laws, " inalienable part[s] of the People's Republic of China. ". — Instantnood 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong article.

Article 12:

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.

-- ran (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Article 1. Wrong buttons, perhaps. :-) — Instantnood 23:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting!! Respond to Article 12 first. -- ran (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't they define in article 12 in each of the basic laws, respectively, that it is an administrative division? Why did they call them local government region local administrative region? A local government region local administrative region may be an adminisrative division, may be not. It can be anything. Why didn't they specify it's an administrative division, in the same manner Article 30 of the Constitution does? Why didn't they do so in Article 31 of the Constitution, if they are administrative division? — Instantnood 16:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

Article 12 of the Basic Law says local administrative region in English. English is one of the two official languages of HKSAR, so don't make up your own translations.

Article 30 of the Constitution is clearly not an exhaustive list of administrative divisions. Prefectures, leagues, development zones, banners, autonomous banners, forestry areas, special districts, sumu, ethnic sumu, district public offices, and subdistricts are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, yet they function de facto as administrative divisions of the PRC.

-- ran (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I translated nothing. It's one's own personal interpretation to declare local administrative region are administrative division. Prefectures, leagues, development zones, banners, etc., are not mentioned, but they're subordinate to provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities (or through subordinates of provinces, etc.), and (perhaps except prefectures, which may arguably corresond to jiàodàdeshì) are equivalence, in terms of level in the hierachy, of those mentioned in Article 30. That's not the case for special adminsitrative regions and Article 31. — Instantnood 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what is so special about an "administrative division" that not all "local administrative regions" satisfy? If Hong Kong SAR is a local government governing a territory that is one part of the People's Republic of China, with borders defined by the central gov't of the People's Republic of China, why is it not a division? Is there some specific usage for the word "administrative division" that HK and Macau do not satisfy? -- ran (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A dependent territory, for instance (I'm not saying Hong Kong and Macao are or are not dependent territories), may or may not be legally part of its corresponding sovereign state (some sovereign states define their dependent territories to be part of themselves, some don't), with its borders defined by the sovereign state. Is dependent territory an administrative division? — Instantnood 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job not answering the question! SchmuckyTheCat 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I speak only from evidence, instead of being emotional, passionate and/or nationalistic - something must be avoided when contributing to an encyclopædia. — Instantnood 14:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Schmucky is right, you did not answer the question. Let me ask it again, but even more clearly: if Hong Kong SAR is a government with powers explicitly vested in it by the NPC of the PRC, governing a territory over which PRC has undisputed sovereignty per international agreement, with borders defined by the central gov't of the PRC, and all of its special rights and autonomies defined in the Basic Law which is a piece of legislation adopted by the NPC and promulgated by the PRC president, then in which way is HKSAR not an administrative division of the PRC? -- ran (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Power of the Puerto Rican government, for instance, are vested upon by the US Congress. Its constitution is approved by the US Congress. Is it an administrative division of the US? Is administrative division defined in this way?

I look at the article 12 of both basic laws, and the articles 30 and 31 of the 1982 Constitution, and I've found no provision that the special administrative regions are (or are not) administrative divisions. — Instantnood 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then they are, by common definition of the term. SchmuckyTheCat 21:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What are what? Are British overseas territories, e.g. Bermuda, Gibraltar, administrative divisions of the UK? What is the term commonly defined as? — Instantnood 21:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of France: France is the best analogy for the PRC as it, too, is a unitary state. In fact the French constitution is even more careful than the PRC constitution in that it describes overseas territories as a type of territorial unit (Article 72). The PRC has also legislated this, as I've mentioned before, but it's part of the Basic Laws rather than the Constitution.

Political divisions of the United States: the US adds complications, as it is a federal state, rather than a unitary state. The US consists of both its constituent states and additional territories set up by the federal state. The states vest power in the federal government, and the territories get their power from the federal government. Hence it's difficult to draw an analogy between the US and the PRC/France: if anything, French and PRC administrative divisions (even French régions and PRC provinces) are legally speaking more akin to US territories than states.

The United Kingdom is a different case yet again, because "United Kingdom" is used to refer to only the four constituent countries, not the entire region over which the crown of the UK is sovereign; otherwise, wording in legislation like the British Nationality Act 1981 regarding UK overseas territories wouldn't make sense. This is not true for the term "PRC", which is definitely coterminous with the entire area over which the PRC has sovereignty, including HK and Macau (in accordance with their Basic Laws). So while Gibraltar is not a UK division (as by definition it is not even a part of the UK), HK is certainly a PRC division.

In short, if you really want to bring up analogies to old colonial powers, then France, the archetypal unitary state so to speak, is the best analogy for the PRC. France considers all of its territories as administrative divisions, just as the PRC does. Does that answer your question? -- ran (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

From what is provided in the 1982 Constitution and the two basic laws, there's no evidence that the PRC considers special administrative regions to be part of the shěng, zìzhìqū and zhíxiáshì hierachy, comparable with them or considered to be at an equivalent level with them. — Instantnood 12:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what does that have to do with this article? -- ran (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First, please cite the constitutional and/or legal evidence that special administrative regions are administrative divisions. Second (iff it's shown they are administrative regions), show that the figures for the special administrative regions are compiled using the same definitions. Different authorities may not be the same definitions to compile these statistics (even the same authority may be using different definitions in different censuses). — Instantnood 11:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guangdong's figure

According to some sources Guangdong tops the list, probably by taking non-permanent population into account, given that the province attracts many migrant workers from elsewhere. Do we need some sort of elaboration on how the figures included in the list were compiled? — Instantnood 14:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)