Category talk:Newspapers published in Hong Kong

Category:Chinese newspapers

This keeps getting reversed (by User:Instantnood), so I'm opening discussion here.

According to the article Hong Kong, this former British colony is now officially part of China. You may recall some news coverage from 1997 to that effect. As such, Hong Kong categories should be included as subcategories of China categories where they exist. Cleduc 00:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's very true that its sovereignty was transferred to the PRC in 1997, yet it is not administratively incorporated into the PRC, and it is distinctive from other first-order administrative divisions of the PRC. I agree the Hong Kong category would better be both subcategory of the by country category, as well as the category for the PRC. Nevertheless, it should not be grouped under a mainland China-specific category. — Insta ntnood 17:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Category:Chinese newspapers is "Mainland-specific" or not is being influenced by the same person attempting to define it as such, thus justifying the removal of HK from this category.--Huaiwei 11:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like many other similar categories, this category has been mainland China-specific since its creation. Its nature as mainland China-specific is little disputed until some users like user:Huaiwei resisted to rename it as category:newspapers of mainland China (or equivalent) to better reflect its nature. (They have in fact block the creation of anything that contains the term "mainland China".) If the name change is approved, there's nothing wrong to group the mainland China-specific, the Hong Kong and Macau categories all under the category for the PRC, and to group the PRC category under the general Chinese category, together with the ROC category. The general Chinese category would then be useful to categorise newspapers that were only published before the ROC and the PRC were founded. — Insta ntnood 12:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Hong Kong and Macau categories all under the category for the PRC". Why then do you resist the formation of PRC categories and having both HK and Macau cats under it?--Huaiwei 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never resisted to do so as long as the Chinese/PRC categories are not mainland China-specific, and, for some cases, mainland China-specific categories are created. — Insta ntnood 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? PRC cats will be "mainland specific" so long that you keep trying to remove the SARS from them. Please explain your hypocrisy.--Huaiwei 14:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't mainland China-specific if they're the parent categories for the mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau categories. — Insta ntnood 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they are not if they are for PRC entries plus categories for HK and Macau?--Huaiwei 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some topics it's necessary to have a mainland China-specific subcategory. — Insta ntnood 16:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is not?--Huaiwei 16:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? — Insta ntnood 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit by user:SchmuckyTheCat

User:SchmuckyTheCat has, using his and Huaiwei's terminology, "reignited an old trouble" by modifying how the categories are structured [1]. He cited the CfD discussion as his rationale, but the real side of the fact is that, the CfD discussion did not address how things should be restructured. I.e., that category shall remain mainland China-specific as it has been, despite the name change. Even worse, he has created category:newspapers of Shanghai [2], effectively trying to put forward his point of view that special administrative regions can be dealt with in the same manner as municipalities. — Insta ntnood 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China (and a first level division at that).
Macau is part of the People's Republic of China(and a first level division at that).
Shanghai is part of the People's Republic of China(and a first level division at that).

These are just plain facts. There's no argument there for them not to be included in sub-categories of "Newspapers in the People's Republic of China" . What is the factual argument against it?

Also,

The parent category is not "mainland China specific", other than your stating it is.
You raised an objection to "restructuring" at the CfD discussion and were rightly ignored, because it makes no sense.

Based on that, I can't find any part of your reverts to be based on fact or community support. I also note, that you blind reverted. The target category that you link to is dead. You're not paying any attention to context when you revert, you're just reverting to do it. SchmuckyTheCat 21:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category had been mainland China-specific before your edits. Restructuring was not even handled at the CfD discussion. Nobody has agreed (or disagreed) to restructure it. The majority only agreed to rename it as nominated. Constitutionally and legally speaking, special administrative regions are not within the same hierarchy of administrative divisions of the People's Republic of China (Cf. Articles 30 and 31 of the 1982 Constitution of the PRC). — Insta ntnood 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your proposal for change? SchmuckyTheCat 19:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, as spelt out before, category:Chinese newspapers, category:newspapers of the People's Republic of China, category:newspapers of the Republic of China, category:newspapers of mainland China, category:Hong Kong newspapers and category:Macau newspapers. Of which the categories for the PRC, the ROC, Hong Kong and Macau shall be subcategories of category:newspapers by country. The Hong Kong and Macao categories will also be subcategories of that for the PRC, together with the mainland one. The Chinese category shall be the parent of those for the PRC and the ROC, and shall be where articles of newspapers which ceased their publications before the founding of the ROC resides. — Insta ntnood 20:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What country is mainland China, again? So you're proposing to make a new category for a country that doesn't exist? And you want to MIX up the PRC and ROC into one parent category? SchmuckyTheCat 20:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland China is not a country by any definition, and the mainland category will not be a subcategory of category:newspapers by country. What's wrong with putting the ROC category as a subcategory of the Chinese one? Taiwan may not be part of a sovereign state called China in future, but the status quo is that the ROC is part of China the geographical and cultural region in East Asia. — Insta ntnood 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you also want to recreate a deleted category "Chinese newspapers" to put the PRC and ROC under, as well as create this "mainland China" category. Why? Because the current scheme doesn't do enough to emphasize the specialness of Hong Kong? Because being considered at the same level as Shanghai dilutes the prestige of Hong Kong somehow? SchmuckyTheCat 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is seeking to emphasise anything. The reality is now downplayed. It should be accurately reflected. — Insta ntnood 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What reality is downplayed? SchmuckyTheCat 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau are still, at least until the present moment, substantially different. They're three administrations and three jurisdictions for most matters. It has never been a problem among Chinese-speaking people, and has never been an issue in English to reflect the reality as it is, as is the case in the media of mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau. (Tho in Taiwan pro-independence media tend to use China in place of People's Republic of China excluding Taiwan and the Pescadores, but that's beyond neutrality.) — Insta ntnood 09:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they are three different categories. So, what is downplayed? SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i) There was, until your edits, only a mis-titled mainland China-specific category (and since your edits there's currently no mainland China-specific category), ii) there are three categories only, instead of four; with one, for the sovereign state, being the parent of the other three, and iii) based on your edits ([3] [4] [5]) it's obvious you're disregarding the constitutional and legal arrangements concerning administrative divisions. — Insta ntnood 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it disregarding the consitutional and legal arrangement concerning administrative divisions? Is Shanghai not a first level division of the PRC? Is Hong Kong not a first level division of the PRC? Why does the existence of Hong Kong since 1997 necessitate this extra level of categorization? Why not

PRC
- mainland
  - Shanghai, Beijing, etc
- SAR
  - Hong Kong, Macau

Isn't that kind of thing un-necessary, to have two unoccupied parent levels of category? The categories aren't information and aren't designed to be absolute reflections of real world bureaucratic organization - they are navigation aids for readers of the encyclopedia. Even if your proposal were accurate, which it isn't, it isn't necessary for our encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat 20:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest a parent category just for the two special administrative regions. An encyclopædia must be reflecting the reality as much as possible.

As for your concern regarding occupancy, the PRC category, besides being a parent category, is useful for newspapers that is printed and published (with substantial and comparable circulations) in both mainland China and Hong Kong or Macao (while there's none for the time being). — Insta ntnood 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suggest that if you create an artificial organizational division for "mainland" then there is a necessary artificial organizational division for the SAR. You seem to ignore that the "mainland" is 50 some other provinces and cities that are all organizationally equal to Hong Kong as primary divisions of the PRC. As such, the current organizational structure is exactly correct. SchmuckyTheCat 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly disregarding the constitutional set-up. Nowhere in the 1982 Constitution, nor in the two basic laws, is special administrative region compared to any of the levels within the hierachy of administrative divisions as prescribed by Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution. As a matter of fact, there are laws, regulations, treaties, etc. that are having reference to mainland. In actual practise there're agreements, conferences, and so on and so forth that is between mainland and Hong Kong or Macao, or among the three. — Insta ntnood 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hong Kong a first level division of the PRC? Yes. Is Shanghai? Yes. We're done. SchmuckyTheCat 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic works regarding the Constitution of the PRC don't seem to be comparing them in this manner. — Insta ntnood 08:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert, 4 Apr 2006

Instantnood has again chosen to re-ignite this old feud after his last revert war was halted by enochlau. He recycled the same tired edit summary used before and didn't mention anything on this talk page. I've reverted it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, the CFR did not deal with the scope of that category. It only deals with its name change. Only the name was changed, and no decision was ever made with respect to its scope. What user:SchmcukyTheCat had done [6] [7] was groundless. — Insta ntnood 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groundless pshaw. You've kept trying to say this about the CfR, which doesn't matter. You reverted the creator, Olivier, [8]. You reverted Cleduc twice, [9]. You reverted Huaiwei three times, [10]. You reverted me, [11]. You reverted enochlau, [12].

Knock it off. SchmuckyTheCat 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who said it's to do with the CfR [13] [14]. My first edits [15], made two months after user:Olivier created the category, was to bring it in line with many other categories Olivier has created. Three months later in June 2005, user:Cleduc made it inconsistent with other Hong Kong-related categories [16]. User:Huaiwei unsurprising came into the scene in January 2006, as part of his POV pushing [17] [18] [19]. I've reiterated many times I don't object making a Hong Kong-related category a subcategory of that for the PRC, as long as the category for the PRC is not mainland China-specific, and is not disregarding the distinctions between the administrative divisions in mainland China (art. 30 of the constitution of the PRC) and special adminsitrative regions (art. 31). Although efforts to settle the matter was blocked for so many times, I has been following the examples set up by user:Olivier to use wikilinks, joining mainland China-specific categories with those for Hong Kong and Macao. — Insta ntnood 22:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? SchmuckyTheCat 06:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly state explicitly if you're not interested to discuss and have the matter settled, that you're only interested to assert your point of view to entries on Wikipedia. Thank you very much. — Insta ntnood 12:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]