Talk:One country, two systems

message: This part has no citation and per my limited knowledge, Hong Kong has not reverted to a De Facto status. Can we remove that part from the intro?--Asad29591 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Hong Kong to have reverted to a de facto "one country, one system" status

message: About my edit : the Chinese equivalent for (sovereign) State, country and nation are all 國/国 (although sovereign State can be more strictly and accurately translated as 主權國/主权国). Many experts in translation, politics and constitutional law have pointed out that the slogan form-like "one country, two systems" formula could be better translated as "two systems within one sovereign state" or "two systems under one sovereignty", or at least "one country with two systems", if the meaning has to be strictly and accurately reflected. — Instantnood 16:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
*Source it, cite it, make it verifiable. "Many experts" isn't sourced, cited, and verifiable. "translation issues" shouldn't be in the intro paragraph. SchmuckyTheCat 16:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two systems within one sovereign State

message: Why are there two romanisations for Cantonese listed? Surely its not necessary? --Sumple (Talk) 09:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering the fact that 1C2S currently is implemented only in Cantonese-speaking areas, I think one Cantonese romanisation is appropriate. Two, however, could be as you say, overkill. :D -- Миборовский 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation overkill? 

message: I'm new to this subject matter, but I am confused by the following sentence in an otherwise very informative article:
"Specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is given a constitutional status through the basic laws."
How do "basic laws" (assuming that these are laws of Hong Kong, not PRC) give the covenant the status of a constitutional element? Do the laws say something like, "this shall be as the constitution" without actually amending the constitution?
This sentence might inform readers who already know how this is handled, but it's not very clear to the naive reader.
Thanks for you consideration.
D'scribed 13:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: I removed the material listing a lack of self-determination, because it was not given by the source, and therefore appears to be original research. Any sourced criticism of 1C2S that involves a lack of self-determination of course does belong in the article. Ngchen (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-determination 

message: Comparison to proposals for Uugurs?--Kaiyr (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to proposals for Uugurs? 

message: Therefore, the section which argues with it is not really neutral. To make it more neutral I added the view of an international law expert who worked for the German government as an expert on this issue. The sentence I added reads:
:However, international law expert, Eckart Klein, opposes argumentations based on the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, stating "The so-called Seventeen-Point Agreement of 1951 also in no way constitutes such consent, since, as a contract signed under duress, it is legally invalid." Details here. Kt66 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: the legal validity of the 17 points agreement is not accepted by international law experts

message: the 'One China, Better system' link at the bottom of the page leads to a page on the Chinese wikipedia with no equivalent English article. 
2602:306:32B0:F9E0:8D56:D30C:501D:C263 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible issue

message: Hello, 
I need help! I added a new reference, No. 7, but cannot understand what this means: The named reference refa1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). 
This is my first attempt to edit/add a new ref to an article, now I am totally lost and confused. Can anyone guide me in the right direction, or let me know what I have done wrong. I am fairly new at this and am still learning. Thanks a lot in advance. --Purplewing51 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello, 
I need help! I added a new reference, Nr. 7, but cannot understand what this means: The named reference refa1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). 
This is my first attempt to edit/add a new ref to an article, now I am totally lost and confused. Can anyone guide me in the right direction, or let me know what I have done wrong. I am fairly new at this and am still learning. Thanks a lot in advance. --Purplewing51 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :One country, two systems's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "law":
From Greenland:  Law of Greenlandic Selfrule (see chapter 7)
From Restrictions on geographic data in China: 
From Greenlandic language: Law of Greenlandic Selfrule (see chapter 7) 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:One country, two systems]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on One country, two systems. 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/20141008210149/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-06/10/c_133396891.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-06/10/c_133396891.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231053934/http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050501.htm to http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050501.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029181422/http://www.roc-taiwan.org/FI/ct.asp?xItem=434137&ctNode=5855&mp=182 to http://www.roc-taiwan.org/FI/ct.asp?xItem=434137&ctNode=5855&mp=182
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Moved from User talk:Simonm223
Personally I don't believe my edit is disruptive or controversial, yet only a minor rectification one. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit had a substantial impact on WP:NPOV by changing China to Mainland China and by restoring lines that implied Hong Kong is treated, internationally, as a distinct nation. Neither of these things are appropriate in this context. Furthermore, when challenged on an edit, you are supposed to go to article talk rather than edit warring it back in. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I will go over your arguments:
# You claimed my edit "had a substantial impact on WP:NPOV by changing China". Frankly I too suggest you reading WP:NC-CN before making any assertions on any China-related articles. Back to the article itself, the context is "the rest of the PRC", not "PRC". I don't reckon you can't see the difference here.
# Regarding my "restoring lines that implied Hong Kong is treated, internationally, as a distinct nation", I am afraid that you may have misunderstood my intention. That HK should go under the name "Hong Kong, China" is explicitly stipulated in Article 151 of the Basic Law. Therefore, I don't consider my edits to be wrong under any circumstance.
# Since my edit is only challenged by you, I straightforwardly go to your talk page. Hopefully it's not wrong. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Shall we go to the article's talk page per se if appropriate? --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I have boldly done the move. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding my edit 

message: Being rather interested in the topic, but terrible at creating wiki pages, i'd like to point out that the 2019 Hong Kong Protests must be of some significance to this page, yet there are absolutely no references to it on this page. Might a better wikian be able to add a section for the protests, so that others may know to work on it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJosh999 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 Hong Kong Protests 

message: Mainland, Taiwan (they insist it is part of China), Tibet, Macau, Hong Kong - they all have different systems actually, where does the 2 come from in 2 systems if there are 5 or more systems? ZhuLien⚡ 1:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  If China has about 5 systems, why is it called 1 country 2 systems? 

message: Multiple editors are reverting your edit. Please discuss here. Thanks. Citobun (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Due to the growing pressure for the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to engage in the cross-strait development over the past recent years developed by KMT-CPC, the DPP finally softened its stance on its Taiwan independence movement when the former chairman Frank Hsieh visited Mainland China on 4–8 October 2012, a groundbreaking visit by the highest rank in DPP, although he claimed that this trip was done in his private capacity and as a non-politician. The DPP also established its party China Affairs Committee on 21 November 2012"General news: Su to Chair DPP’s 'China Affairs Committee'" . Kuomintang, 21 November 2012 and proposed the Broad One China Framework () on 27 May 2014 led by former chairman Shih Ming-teh.
I removed the above section since it doesn't discuss "one country, two systems" at all. Not every cross-strait development needs to be included here unless it's needed for context for understanding the term and how the term has been interpreted/used by various involved parties. DrIdiot (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: Apokrif (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we keep the wikification from "unites China" to [[Chinese unification]] which is mainly about Taiwan?