Talk:Administrative divisions of China

Three, not four, de jure administrative divisions
The "Levels" section of this article is probably written very confusingly and states outright that according to the constitution, there are four administrative levels which is blatantly untrue. I am unable to comprehend the rest of the paragraph due to the convoluted parentheses and comma use. Chinese law calls itself a "three-tier system," to quote the constitution:

Article 30 The administrative division of the People’s Republic of China is as follows:

(1) The country is divided into provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government;

(2) Provinces and autonomous regions are divided into autonomous prefectures, counties, autonomous counties, and cities; and

(3) Counties and autonomous counties are divided into townships, nationality townships, and towns.

Municipalities directly under the Central Government and other large cities are divided into districts and counties. Autonomous prefectures are divided into counties, autonomous counties, and cities.

All autonomous regions, autonomous prefectures and autonomous counties are national autonomous areas.

See citations. Please keep in mind that I am talking about the de jure rather than de facto administrative divisions of China.

On a side note, citation 1 of the article does not anyhow support the corresponding statement in the article, I am placing an extra citations needed beside the statement but not removing it unless somebody else can confirm that that is the case. If you can confirm, then please remove the citation completely.

This article is not NPOV
The very first glimpse of this article confirms that it is not NPOV..look at the tables on the right hand side. They are all relevant to the PRC only. This only serves to re-inforce the popular idea that China = PRC and only the PRC. These tables should be removed, or tables also relevant to the ROC, Hong Kong and Macau added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.66.152.110 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 October 2006

"Da dui?"
I am wondering whether this administrative designation should fit under certain levels of administration, due to the fact that many of these "Da dui" (lit "large detatchment" are very autonomous, incorporate many people and wield substatial powers. This, and also some special PLA administrations acting like local governments should pherhaps be explained or at least mentioned in the "special cases"- section.

/anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.188.129.241 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 July 2007

Provincial Level is not respectful and not true
First, there is no "Provincial Level" in laws and Ordinance. It is simply a term invented by some and this term has no legal ground. Second, the Chinese Constitution and Hong Kong Basic Law as well as Macau Basic Law state that Special Administrative Region is created due to special occasion and directly under the Central government thus should not be treated as anything level of administrative unit similar to a province. All administrative units that share similarity has been listed on Article 30 while SAR is particularly listed on Article 31. The nature is entirely different. Third, it is not respectful to Hongkonger and Macanese as they should not be treated as what they are not. They are not a province, and not a provincial level unit either. None of any other provincial level administrative unit share similar autonomy and status as if the SARs. One will find themselves ignoring the fact if they treat Puerto Rico or Guam as a "state-level unit", or to treat Gibraltar as a "kingdom level unit". For simply "directly under the central government" only leads to neutral term like "first-level unit" but never make it equivalent to a province. Xxjkingdom (talk) 01:46, 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". 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 the same level as these provinces, 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Administrative divisions of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923221313/http://www.nyconsulate.prchina.org:80/chn/xw/t97954.htm to http://www.nyconsulate.prchina.org/chn/xw/t97954.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209161035/http://www.guang.net:80/map.htm to http://www.guang.net/map.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.allroadsleadtochina.com/index.php/regional-and-city-reports/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)