Talk:Macau/Archive 2

message: there is no evidence to provide that these two cities below are sister cities with Macau SAR .  Please refer to this web page (Chinese).
**  Malacca Town Melaka  Malaysia
**  Panaji Goa  India
However, for other cities including the one from Vietnam can ALL be verified.
72.138.191.63 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sister cities 

message: "In 2004 gambling revenues from Macau's casinos were for the first time greater than those of Las Vegas (each about $5 billion), which means [Macau is now the biggest gambling centre in the World." Can anyone back the ab]ove statement up with any evidence? Las Vegas's Gambling industry seems massive compared to Macau's.
: Las Vegas, whilst being the slot machine capital of the world, currently has fallen behind Macau as the gambling capital of the world.  Vegas gaming tables on average are showing a $2524 win per table.  Macau on the other hand is enjoying $17808 per table per day.  With 19 casinos in operation and another dozen or so to open in the next 18 months, Macau has truly embraced the gambling culture with a success that Vegas can only dream about.
I removed the claim that Sands Macau is the largest Casino in the world.  It says in the cited article that "The claim to being the world's largest could not be immediately verified..."  If it can't be verified, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. VietGrant 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS) announced that " the Sands Macao, the first western-operated casino in Asia, has completed the expansion of its casino floor.  The Total Casino now measures over 229,000 square feet, and the 740 tables now on the casino floor position the Sands Macao as the largest casino in the world."therefore, it has been verified.  Please also refer to Macau Business.. Please pay attention to these sources that they are not pro-Macau government and thus it should be quite objective.  70.52.74.68 03:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you insist on placing this "fact" in the article, I suggest you find a more reliable source.  We can't just take the word of the Sands Casino President.  I'm not saying that the Casino isn't the largest.  Just find a better source.  Even the quote at macaubusiness.com simply quotes the Sands President!  There must be some governing board somewhere who serves as the authority in such matters.  I can claim that I have the biggest house on the planet... VietGrant 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: of course you can claim that you have the biggest house in the world provided that you couldn't find any evidence to act against your claim.  What do you mean by "reliable source"?  there is no critera at all unless you find another fact to prove that Sands Casino (i.e. one is larger than 229,000 square feet and more than 740 tables)isn't the largest, you can put it on wiki, what do you think?  The president of Casino of course can also claim as he must take the reponsbility for his speech in order to keep his business running well in future.  Intergrity is important for the head figure!!!  Plus, LVS (in the USA) is different from SM, it gives no advantages and benefits at all for LVS to recognise that Sands Macao is the largest one in the world.  If not so, why not LVS claim itself it is the largest casino in the world?  why not Wynn, Galaxy, MGM and other rivals stand out and prove that the president of Sands Macao is talking about rubbish?  70.55.132.88 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that ANYONE can say they have the largest ANYTHING in the world.  A person making that claim about their "whatever" being the largest "whatever" should not be THE AUTHORITY to cite in publication.  There must be a governing body or watch-group somewhere that keeps track of these statistics.  Find it!  Cite it!  It's that simple.  These are basic fundamentals of academic writing.  Most of us learned this when we took English Comp I at the age of eighteen. VietGrant 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, you didn't say anything and make any point here.  This is NOT MY RESPONSBILITY to find out so-called authority to cite in publication.  The one who feel jealous and act againist the fact is you.  Why not you find the evidence from the related authority and cite it here?  YOU EVEN DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF AUTHORITY YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.  Even someone else would like to find a related authority (actually I don't know what you were talking about, and actually there is no such authority in this case) to cite this claim, surely you will suspect if that authority is already qualifed.  If you can find out if there is one casino in the world has more than 740 tabbles or larger than 229,000 square feet from whatever sources, you have enough evidence to act againist what I have already put on the wiki. 70.52.72.176 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: with authority from somewhere doesn't mean the figure is correct or not.  Sometimes it has some mistakes or outdated.  Authority couldn't find out all figures in the world and make the list.  For 911 incident, the NY government at that time announced that certain amount of deaths, however more than 14 death bodies were found from that site in Oct, 2006, do you think the related "authority" has the final say?  I don't think so!  Medical doctor is enough to show this patient is sick.  Judge is enough to declare this person is guilty.  Do you need to find someone who is working related "authorities to prove that?  I don't think so because they are all professionals.  In this case, you trust these professionals because they are working in this field.  Same thing, if he is the president of that casino (he is the professional in this sphere) and a well-known person in this sphere (he is the third richest person in the US according to Forbe info.), it is already QUALIFIED FOR HIM TO MAKE THAT CLAIM. leungli 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think from the source of Travel Industry Review, it also reveals the fact.  I think that I will take it.  Please also find other facts from Travel Industry Review and act against the claim.  Thanks! leungli 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: again!  you didn't make any point still.  Go to find one where is larger than Sands Casino and write down the web site, otherwise, "Get Out"!!  Period!  70.52.72.176 07:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Go ahead and escalate, who cares?  to cope with you such rogue is pretty easy, I will simply revert what you will do each time.  I knew you would take the largest casino in the US namely Foxwoods here.  I got this info and also I knew this is also a part of wiki topic as well.  Foxwoods is the largest resort casino in the world, but NOT the largest casino alone in the world like Sands Casino.  Resort includes Accommodations at the resort total 1,416 guest rooms and suites, including the 824 room Grand Pequot Tower, 312 room Great Cedar Hotel and the 280 room Two Trees Inn. For conventions and group events, Foxwoods features more than 55,000 square feet of meeting space and 25 conference rooms.  Unforunately what you claimed "Foxwoods" to have so-called 340,000 square feet is including all space even without tables, and also other gaming area where is not the category of casino like Bingo or something.  If you pay attention to the tables in Foxwoods, it is around 388, however, Sands Casino is over 740.  According to the surveying theory, one only calculates the actual space where is occupied by tables, or the area where is used, but not the space that is occupied by nothing (i.e. the whole building area will not be counted).  Therefore Sands Casino is the largest casino in the world for the time being.  You should go to the topic of Foxwoods and revert them. leungli 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: leungli, just ignore that person!  The guy will not listen to your explantation.  He just feels jealous, that's it!   If he adds nonsense or removes on this topic, I will revert it if I have time. 70.52.64.82 23:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gambling 

message: This rule (3RR) says that no one should revert more than three times within 24 hours. At least two users have done so. This is a warning at the moment only. The next step would be a block of the offending editor for 24 hours. Anotehr possible step could be the protection of this page. This is invariably on the wrong version...  Refdoc 23:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does an edit count then? It seems like the above measure came too late, and is now awarding the person who PERSISTED in the rv wars.--Huaiwei 23:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: As a matter of fact, I undid questionable edits your conducted which where under contention. It is hardly surprising for your to revert my reverts. So who started it?--Huaiwei 23:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed I am going out to take a break. Goodness knows what is going to happen when I come back. And I still ask....is an edit counted as a revert? What happens when an edit war ensues?--Huaiwei 00:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Refdoc. — Instantnood 00:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) 
A revert happens when you revert to an earlier version, normally resulting a blank "diff". Complicating can be when you accommodate some edits but keep reverting others - the "diff" will show then the accepted edits and some interpretation of what is going on might be necessary. Fianlyy there are some people who think careful gaming of this rule is a smart move - rest assured, it is not. It is just a sign of deviousness and malice, making eventual blocks longer. And apart from all this normal editing can obviously continue. The page is not protected. Shoudl an edit war resume and shoudl I still be awake I will simply protect the page on a random version. Refdoc 00:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well thanks very much for that assurance. I suppose my concerns are more or less laid to rest, as raised in the other talkpage. If an attempt to combine small edits with the main purpose of actually removing an offending piece of text (as someone is obviously doing) is not considered a rv, I would be quite amused! ;) --Huaiwei 05:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Three Revert Rule 

message: The information about the names of Macao in the article seems a bit confusing to me. I read Chinese (with difficulty), and as far as I know the only normal Chinese name of the place is Aomen. However, this article stresses the two characters 馬交, at the beginning and in the "Names" section in a way that could lead readers to think that 馬交 is the ordinary and official Chinese name of the place, and Aomen just a popular variant, which is not the case at all. In fact, the way the two characters appear in parentheses after the Portuguese name can mislead some readers into thinking that "Macau" is just a transcription of those two Chinese characters, as when one writes "Shanghai (上海)". In this respect, I think the article puts the cart before the horse. 馬交 if used at all, is just a Chinese transcription of the Western name. I think it would be better to remove 馬交 from the article. I am a regular contributor to the China-related articles in Spanish Wikipedia and somebody had translated parts of this article, including the 馬交 bit, for the Spanish article. I removed that one or two months ago, and rewrote most of the article. However, I am not very confident about my writing skills in English, and I know that there are people much more knowledgeable than me in the English-language Wikipedia, so I'll leave it for others to decide what should be done here.
As for the Macao/Macau controversy, I understand Macao is the original Portuguese spelling which was adopted by all European languages a long time ago. The Portuguese language underwent several spelling reforms during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and at some point the digraph "ao" was standardised as "au" so that "cacao" became "cacau", the Brazilian city of "Manaos" became "Manaus", and "Macao" became "Macau". The rest of the world has continued to use the older "Macao" spelling for the most part. In Spanish, for example, only the "o" spelling is used. Since the People's Republic of China officially regards "Macao" as the official English spelling of the place, I think there is little justification for using the Portuguese name. I agree with those who think the article should be moved to "Macao". --AngelRiesgo 09:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, this is not about Cantonese vs. Putonghua, but rather about the Portuguese name being more popular locally. This is not surprising since the place was run by Portugal for nearly five centuries. Anyway, I've finally decided to "be bold", and I have edited the Names section in the article. I think it is a bit clearer now.--AngelRiesgo 16:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Since the handover of sovereignty, the government of Macau considers "Macao" the official English spelling of the name, whereas "Macau" remains the official spelling in Portuguese. This is the practice followed in official documents like passports and immigration forms.
is actually inaccurate. The PRC may spell it as Macao, hence influencing its usage on passports and its official govt website and so on, but the fact remains that the Macau government uses the Macau spelling much more often. A google seach shows that 387,000 Macaus could be found in gov.mo sites, while there are only 40,200 Macaos. Contrast this with 51,800 Macaos on gov.cn, and 11,100 Macaus.
Hence quite on the contrary, arguing that wikipedia should use Macao over Macau actually bucks the international trend. Are we suppose to remain as a nuetral website reflective of international uses, or are we supposed to reflect the desires of the Chinese government?--Huaiwei 18:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There's so far no evidence showing that it's because "Macao" is the usage preferred by the PRC government, hence the Macanese government uses it, or the other way round. I'd be interested to know if Portuguese webpages are excluded in your Google test. Thanks. (In fact even if Portuguese pages are excluded, and only English pages are included in the test, the figures for Macau would still be inflated. This is because even for English pages that are using Macao in its entire content, since Portuguese is the official language, while English is not, Macau would still appear in the urls or in e-mail addresses.) — Instantnood 18:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm...please use Standard English and/or Modern English. I cannot comprehend the last few sentences. Honestly (as always).--Huaiwei 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd consider the above comment as a sign showing his unwillingness to discuss. — Instantnood 19:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I then consider that statement as a sign that instantnood cannot face up to the fact that his usage of the English language can be a serious challenge to people more accustomed to normal English? I simply cannot comprehend what he is saying here, and I am expecting it to be re-phrased. Accusing the other party of not being serious to partake in discussions is reflective of a person who himself was never willing to discuss anyway in the first place, and seems to be seeking every opportinity to wreak havok to the discussion process.--Huaiwei 19:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huaiwei, when I said "the rest of the world", I was thinking about most Western languages that use the Latin alphabet. The Portuguese spelling "Macau" (which replaced "Macáo" after the spelling reform approved by the Portuguese government in 1911) has only made any significant inroads in English. In languages like Spanish, French or German, "Macao" continues to be practically universal. As for the English-speaking world, I don't think "Macau" became common immediately after the 1911 Portuguese spelling reform. It was probably in the second half of the 20th century when the English-language media (with exceptions) started to adopt the modern Portuguese spelling. This made sense at the time since Macau was a Portuguese territorry and its only official name was, understandably enough, the Portuguese one. After the handover of sovereignty, if the Chinese and Macanese authorities had decided to stick to "Macau" as the only romanised form in any Western language, I agree that "Macau" would have to be the preferred form in English. The problem is that they (and I don't know if this is the responsibility of the PRC government or of the Macao SAR authorities) decided to use "Macao" in English (and in othe Western languages. See the Spanish or French editions of the People's Daily online, for example). This makes the situation a bit awkward. "Macao" used to be the traditional form in English, but had been largely superseded by "Macau" at the end of the nineties. Now the spelling "Macao" has made a sort of comeback on the back of the decision to use it as the official English name by the relevant Chinese and Macao authorities. In my opinion, the argument for "Macau" is quite poor at present because both tradition and official endorsement support the use of "Macao". I agree that "Macau" became the most common spelling in English in the eighties and nineties, but is that a compelling reason to continue using it even if the Chinese authorities themselves use the "o" spelling in English? --AngelRiesgo 10:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then I would be questioning how wikipedia practices its policies if governmental choices are always prioritised. The debate over China, Taiwan, and their respective official names immediately comes to mind. Anyway mentioning how the Spanish, French, German, etc spells the word Macau is of little relevance here, because we are dicussing its English spelling. Yes, the English media, plus many goverments, has started adopting the Macau spelling, and I dont think it happened by chance. I dont think they took this name just because "Macau" is the "official portuguese name", else Japan will become "Nippon". While it is true that the Chinese government appears to officially prefer Macao, they themselves uses Macau too, and so does the Macau government in English texts. the simple compelling reason we have here to spell it as Macau, is that it is now the most widely used spelling in English texts, irrespective of how the Chinese government spells it. (this reminds me of the debate over Laozi). :D)--Huaiwei 11:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this matter is not so important after all. We can leave it as "Macau" if most people prefer it like that, but it is important to know why the two names exist, and my comment that the "rest of the world continued to use the old spelling for a long time" was an interesting comment in my opinion. A lot of readers of Wikipedia may not know that the reason why this controversy exists (or why in other languages like German or Spanish only "Macao" is used) is that "Macáo" only became "Macau" in Portuguese after a spelling reform in 1911, so most other European languages have just retained the traditional name that had been used for centuries. I don't think you will find any English source using "Macau" before the mid 20th century at the earliest. And I cannot think of any other reason why the English-language media would have started using the "u" spelling other than a wish to conform to standard Portuguese spelling. If you have any other theory I would be interested in knowing what it is. What I still don't know, and nobody seems to have clarified here, is whether the decision to use the older "Macao" spelling in English was made by somebody in Beijing (Peking if you like) or if it was taken in Macao itself. My contribution to the article attributed this to the PRC, but it was later edited to attribute the choice of English name to the Macao SAR. I'm still unclear whose responsibility it is, but I agree with you that Internet searches seem to indicate that it is the PRC central authorities that seem to have adopted the "o" spelling first. I still don't understand what the rationale for this is. After all, most people had already got used to seeing the "u" spelling in English. It is also a bit odd, in my opinion, because no other place name in the PRC has different romanisations for different languages. I mean, the PRC uses "Beijing" or "Hong Kong" or "Urumqi" in all Western languages. This is the only case I know where they have chosen to make a distinction in the official romanisation depending on the language. --AngelRiesgo 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just dont think the statement that the "rest of the world continued to use the old spelling for a long time" was entirely true, at least not now. Other then this, all we seem to be doing is speculate and trying to form up our own theories, which I feel is quite a dangerous thing to do.--Huaiwei 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (response to AngelRiesgo's comment at 16:46, October 20) Actually in many European languages Hong Kong is spelt as Hongkong. The non-Pinyin spelling of mainland Chinese cities (e.g. Peking, Pequim, Pékin, Cantão) are retained in common use in many European languages, too.  — Instantnood 17:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course, but I was talking about the official PRC policy. Most newspapers in Spain use Pekín, but the PRC always uses Beijing in its texts in Spanish (Embassy announcements, People's Daily and Xinhua Spanish services, brochures for tourists, etc.). I think it is the same in German or French (Peking and Pékin used by most speakers and the media, while PRC-produced texts in these languages use Beijing). It is precisely this PRC policy on place names that made the English-language media, and to a lesser extent those from the rest of the Western world, to adopt spellings like Beijing or Chongqing and ditch the traditional ones. What I find unique about the Macao/Macau situation is that it is the PRC itself that uses "Macao" in English and "Macau" in Portuguese. I can't think of any other example where the PRC officially endorses two different romanisations for different languages. --AngelRiesgo 18:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True indeed. :-) — Instantnood 18:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyone heard of Singapur? Its not English of coz. :D--Huaiwei 17:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The PRC government considers Pinyin a romanisation method, not anglicisation. Therefore it wants all of its place names in all roman letter-based western languages to be changed to Pinyin. So far it has only been successful in English though. — Instantnood 17:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That's what I meant in my comment above, that the PRC endorses a unique romanisation (even when it is not pinyin, as in Lhasa or Urumqi) for all Latin-based languages. That's what makes the Macao/Macau case unique in my opinion. --AngelRiesgo 18:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er...isnt Urumqi pinyin too?--Huaiwei 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ürümqi is written as Wulumuqi in Pinyin (diacritics omitted). — Instantnood 18:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah hor. Paiseh.--Huaiwei 19:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about names 

message: The Economy of Macao article is quite long, too long to be merged into the main article. --Dpr 10:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The colour of the flag now used in article is seemed to be different with the real flag used in Macau.--HeiChon~XiJun 09:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Colour of the flag 

message: anyone fancy adding a section for macau there? Plugwash 03:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[telephone numbering plan]] 

message: I don't grasp the meaning of this sentence in the article:
"Macau is guaranteed for 50 years starting from December 20, 1999, provided under the Basic Law, will be over by 2049."
Guaranteed WHAT, exactly?  To keep the name?  And exactly what "will be over" ???   This makes the sentence absurdly ungrammatical, as well as uninterpretable. The sentence must be re-written carefully, or the sentence should be removed.Daqu 18:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the socialism adopted in Mainland China, the Basic Law of Macao guaranteed that the capitalism of economy system, legal system, lifestyle, etc will be remained the same as it was before under the rule of Portuguese government. 70.52.74.68 03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Sentence 

message: What is the HDI for the Macao SAR?  mdjkarazim 2006 May 15 12:30 EST
: please refer to the info box and you will see that the HDI figure is clearly shown with reference.  70.52.74.68 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Development Index 

message: Was there a colonial era flag or coat of arms that can be posted on the Macao page?
Sirbob.
:Yes, colonial flag was added in this topic.  For the coat of arm I couldn't find it but you can go to Chinese version and check it out. 70.52.65.43 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macao Coat of Arms/Flag 

message: Is it just 1 China, or is it Popular Republic, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau?. Are Hong Kong and Macau counted as independent countries or as part of the Popular Republic?. How many Chinas can one speak of?
:there is only "one China" in the world.  Taiwan is the province of PRC; however it is out of PRC control at this moment.  Hong Kong and Macau were already taken over by PRC as special administrative regions. 70.52.74.68 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So how many Chinas' there are then?

message: It's very odd, and a bit ugly, how the IPA transcriptions of the Portuguese are all in European pronunciation, but the .ogg recordings are all in bizare, deafening, mechanical Brazilian pronunciation. It's inconsistent, and that computer voice makes my ears bleed. - Kyle543 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording 

message: I am CHINESE from Macau.
please don't added something that you are not 100% sure.  
Adm. Divisions are still valid in Macau although the functions were offically abolished in 1999.  YOU KNOW NOTHING!!!
  
Plus, please don't rearrange the photos (actually I took) without purpose, you made the layout very ugly and actually I don't want to correct over and over again, you understand "Portuguese MAN"? 
Of course I am not interested in editing you stupid "Portugal".68.191.14.91 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macau

message: Anyone interested in starting a project for Macau, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, User:Enlil Ninlil/WikiProject Macau. Enlil Ninlil 08:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikiproject]]

message: 1)I delete all the categories referring macau as a country and nation.The reason is as follows
Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China which clearly demonstrates Macau is a subdivision of People's Republic of China,not a country, a nation  or a state.Despite Macau is a Dependent territory within China
see the exemple of Åland and Svalbard which donn't include any category of country or nation.--Ksyrie 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of autonomous status; same as the status of province or state in one country, is completely different from the one of special administrative region.  The Chief Executive of Macau is the HEAD of the government of Macao, a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China and a former Portuguese overseas province.  The central government of PRC is not directly administered in this region, like other provinces and autonomous regions in Mainland China.72.138.191.63 03:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone being the "head" dosent change the nature of a territory, so I fail to see how that emphasizes anything here. The SARs of the PRC are Chinese territories enjoying a higher degree of autonomy than other Chinese autonomous territories. Nothing more, nothing less.--Huaiwei 14:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It emphasizes this region "special".  This region, if necessary, can represent itself as Macao, China diplomatically, for example in WTO, Asian Games or any other forms of international organization.  It is provided by the Basic Law of Macau with the concept of One Country, Two Systems.  And this unique policy is only adopted in Hong Kong and Macau, but nowhere else in PRC and even around the world.  Not only higher degree of autonomy (IT MEANS THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN THIS REGION CAN GENERALLY DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT, EXCEPT NATIONAL DEFENCE AND DIPLOMATISM) but also its legal system, monetary policy, custom/immigration and border control, education, police forces, etc can be enforced in this region independent of provincial or central government of PRC.  That is why this region should be depicted separately.  Take an analogy, the head of Canada is not the prime minister Steven Harper, but the Queen Elizebeth II, should Canada considered a part of Britain according to your way of thinking?  For autonomous region enjoying higher degree of autonomy, just like what you said, doesn't mean the head is not the central government/federal government.  Here is the difference.  I suggest that you had better do more research on the Basic Law of Macao before coming back here. 72.138.191.63 17:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cos QEII is also the Queen of Canada. From the constitutional point of view each of the dominions is personal union with the United Kingdom, especially after the British Parliament renounced almost all its power over the dominions. — Instantnood 17:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What does the term "special" mean in this case? Special is relative, and have no meaning to the rest of the world, many of whom also accord "special powers" to their territories without calling them "special". Harping on the level of autonomy still points to the fact that the territory enjoys a high level of autonomy. What's new? Your own statements points to the fact that this "autonomy" is not cast in stone, and is not neccesarily and completely uncontested. "(IT MEANS THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN THIS REGION CAN GENERALLY DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT, EXCEPT NATIONAL DEFENCE AND DIPLOMATISM)". Can the people of HK and Macau decide who is their "head of state" as we speak? Can they vote to become an independent state? Can they amend their own "constitution"? Can they make any changes to their political system without interference from the central government? Can they, in fact, do any tweeks to their economic system with full liberty from the wishes of the central government as well? If not, why?--Huaiwei 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you didn't read my question carefully.  you didn't know how to ask the question properly that might lead to wrong answers.  I suspect that you didn't spend time on reading the material that I told you above.  I am not talking about soverignty.  Autonomus regions in other countries may have limited soveignty, it depends on how do you define it.  Greenland is a good example.  Go back to the topic, if you ask "can they amend their constitution" or " political system without interference from the central government", it clearly reflected that you didn't read the Basic Law of Macao and didn't understand what and how it operates.  So it makes no sense to discuss this matter anymore if you don't/didn't read it. 72.138.191.63 13:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You assume too much, and perhaps it isnt worth too much time talking to individuals who assume complete ignorance amongst all who oppose his views.--Huaiwei 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (response to user:Huaiwei's comment at 14:09, February 3) To support your bold claim, would you mind presenting any evidence, constitutional basis, or academic works that compare the special administrative regions with the autonomous regions? Thanks. (If you can't present the neccessary information, could you please kindly stop posting your claim on Wikipedia?) — Instantnood 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what exactly is my "bold claim" which needs supportive evidence?--Huaiwei 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (response to 72.138.191.63's comment at 03:45, January 25) The Chief Executive is not only the head of the government, but also the head of the special administrative region. — Instantnood 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (response to Ksyrie's comment at 23:26, January 23) Could you please show us any legal or constitutional evidence that special administrative regions are divisions of the People's Republic of China, comparable to any of those listed under Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution? Thanks. — Instantnood 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show any evidence to show otherwise? Asking for the same thing over and over without providing any evidence to back up your own viewpoints isnt really advancing anything here.--Huaiwei 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: see your talk page, I already explained. 72.138.191.63 03:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The nature of Macau