Talk:Chinese unification: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:34, 6 November 2005 editVanished user 456745753784 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users9,061 edits →Unify or Reunify ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:00, 12 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,335,825 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WPCHINA}}, {{WPTAIWAN}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(203 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{afd-merged-from\|Liberation of Taiwan\|Liberation of Taiwan\|27 January 2022}}
	Please explain whether Chinese reunification means:
			{{Talk header}}
	#incorporating Taiwan into Communist China; or,
			{{controversial}}
	#establishing a new country out of China and Taiwan
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject China\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Taiwan\|importance=High}}
			}}

			== A section on HK and Macau ==
	If the article is about the first alternative, it should mention what changes Taiwanese worry may result, if their island is incorporated by the mainland government. Would they lose ], ], the ability to travel abroad or even emigrate?
			I propose a section "Pre-1997 HK", "1997-2047", and "Post-2047", to reflect the 50 years of "One country, two systems." My reasoning is that "Handover" was planned out 20 years ahead of 1997, and during the 50 year period, assimilation of customs territory, political systems, economic platforms, etc... is a step-by-step process, rather than one single event...You might also want to make a distinction between reunified in name only "ie. Hong Kong, China", but HK runs on a completely different governing and economic system than Mainland...and full scale reunification German style...

			:Whilst I can understand the rationale behind it, this is about reunifying the PRC and ROC. The One country, two systems has been adpoted by Hong Kong and Macau, also been proposed as a solution for the ROC/PRC refunication question, of which is mentioned, along with HK and Macau in the current proposals section. Hong Kong and Macau are SARs of the PRC, I'm not sure they need to be mentioned any more than they already are, though people are free to disagree, and I'm not sure how the 2047 and post-2047 would work, like 36 years into the future. --'']'' (]''') 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
	If the article is about the second alternative, it should clarify what sort of government the new nation will be: democracy, or dictatorship, or what?

			== Why 'reunification'? ==
	--] 14:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
			I don't understand why the article is called 'Chinese reunification'. The Chinese term is more neutral and just means 'unification', as far as I can judge that (not a native speaker here). Shouldn't the English title reflect that instead of interpreting it from the POV of the PRC? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			Also, this sentence tries to explain the issue but I think it is misleading: "Many object to the term "reunification" as it implies that Taiwan is part of China" - it merely implies that Taiwan ''was'' a part of China. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	None of this is clear. It depends on who "wins" or when reunification happens. The PRC would like the first option. Actually, the government advocated implementing ], but would also allow Taiwan to keep its own military. The unificationists on Taiwan would either like to (eventually) have the mainland reincoporated by the ROC (unlikely) or have them form a joint democratic government. --] 21:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

			"Reunification" does not imply that Taiwan was part of China - it implies that mainland China was part of the Republic of China.] (]) 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
	-----

			I am also not clear that "Reunification" is accurate since Taiwan was never under the PRC's authority. ] (]) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
	''Chinese reunification is often stereotyped as being the ideology of the Mainlander community on Taiwan, although there are many non-Mainlanders who support reunification and many Mainlanders who oppose it. In addition, the parties which do support reunification often command considerable support for reasons that have nothing to do with cross-strait relations.'' This is doubletalk. Who finances these 'unification' parties? Are there in fact more than one? What are the polls actually telling us? Why would non-Mainlanders want to follow the fate of Hong Kong? ] 12:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
			: It's essentially PRC propaganda terminology, so slightly inappropriate for this Misplaced Pages article unless it is explicitly described as such. Taiwan has never been part of the PRC, though it was under the control of the KMT-led ROC from 1945 to 1996 (though, arguably, not under the ROC's sovereignty), and, prior to that, parts of the island were under Qing administration for over 200 years. The PRC inherited the ROC's seat of "China" at the United Nations (UN), so the UN officially agrees that the PRC is the successor state to the ROC, meaning the UN agrees that the PRC inherits the ROC's historical territorial claims. However, I'm not sure whether the UN ever even historically recognised Taiwan as being part of the ROC in the first place. ] (]) 00:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

			== Mongolia ==
	:I don't see your point about doubletalk. The unificationist parties make up the ].
			The ROC still claims Mongolia, there is no discussion of this in the article. ] (]) 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
			:The ROC doesn't still claim Mongolia. One may argue that the claim is in the ROC Constitution, but it doesn't list or define the national territories. ] (]) 07:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

			== Name of article --> Unification of China? ==
	:According to the ] article, "Opinion polls suggest that between 70 to 80 percent of Taiwanese support the 'status quo' which is to leave Taiwan's status exactly the way that it is." While the majority is not in support of independence, ] has only 10% support with the population, so few unificationists (most notably ]) advocate reuniting with the mainland under that system. Instead, they stress breaking down barriers with the mainland, such as opening the ] and promoting the sovereignty of the ]. For example, in the last elections ] proposed a non-agression pact along with an EU-style trade relationship with the mainland. Some unification politicans also express harsh rhetoric against the PRC, and would like to see the ROC back in the UN, establishing diplomatic relations, etc. So no, they are nowhere near suggesting that they surrender. In contrast, supporters of independence want to see the ROC renamed "Taiwan" and oppose further links with the mainland that could make reunification, which they believe is a bad thing, inevitable.
			Why is the article named Cross-Strait Unification, when "Cross-Strait" is a term that is mostly used in the Chinese language context, and meaningful only for people of China and Taiwan themselves? Outside of that context for both parties, I believe the concept is just called "Chinese unification" or "Unification of China". Also I think "Unification of China" is better so it's clear we're talking about the political entities rather than culturally or the Chinese diaspora.
			It would be better that "Cross-Strait unification" be a redirect than article title, "Unification of China", with a hatnote for "Unification of China (disambiguation)". ] (]) 07:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			:I went ahead with the move to "Chinese Unification" and created "Chinese unification (disambiguation). If anyone sees any issues with this, let me know. ] (]) 22:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
			::The move from "Chinese reunification" to "Cross-strait unification" was a partisan and undiscussed move by User:Uaat, and I was originally planning to move it back to "Chinese reunification" where it originally was located. If Uaat does not like the current title, he should start a ] instead of making sudden controversial changes. The previous title had been in use for many years, and any proposed change needs proper consensus-building first. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::"Reunification" is a better term than "unification", ] and ] are 2 different articles because they're completely different, "Chinese unification" would probably be better fit for the ] unifying ] into ].
			:::Sincerely, --] (]) 21:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
			::::There seems to have been a decision made on the naming without consensus here. I would vote for 'Chinese reunification' as {{reply to\|Benlisquare}} noted, which seems to be the logical naming. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	:Supporting reunification does not necessarily mean endorsing the idea of reunification under the PRC or under one country, two systems. It could mean ''eventual'' reunification under a democratic China. It can also mean promoting the notion that both the Taiwan and mainland are part of a geographical entity named "China" and that there are two Chinese states. Opposing Taiwan independence may be the wise thing to do provided that Taiwan independence amounts to nothing more than an identity change, since Taiwan makes up the ROC and the ROC is already functioning as an independent country - this is not something people would want to fight a war over. --]/] 05:15, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
			Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	== Motivations and Prospects ==
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060711213903/http://www.noticias.info:80/Archivo/2004/200411/20041116/20041116_40109.shtm to http://www.noticias.info/Archivo/2004/200411/20041116/20041116_40109.shtm

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	Removed:

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	:''While there is virtually no opposition to reunification in China, the notion is bitterly resented in Taiwan. While supporters for independece remains at little over 10%, which raised to 21% recently in 2004. More than 70% of the population state that they would take up arms in a war against communist invasions. Partly this is due to the fact that Taiwan has struggled 40 years to put an end to its dictatorial regime; there is no reason to give up their perfectly functioning democracy so soon. The fact that this dictatorship was a mainland one in its roots also discouraged reunification.

			Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 10:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
	The polls are already discussed the the previous section. Taiwan did not "struggled 40 years to put an end to its dictatorial regime". An island does not struggle. The notion that the "democracy" is functioning perfectly is also POV. No system is ever perfect. Anyway, the "dictorial regime" is gone so this is not a reason people oppose reunification. Rather, it's a reason to support independence (for indentity purposes). Talk of support for independence belongs in the Taiwan independence article.

			== Reunification under ROC ==
	:''However, a much more significant reason is that China has alienated the Taiwanese population on several occasions. This stretches as far back as the 19th century, when Taiwan was sceded to Japan. There was an outrage, as many felt betrayed and stabbed in the back by the government on the mainland. The fact that ] officials refused to supply the Taiwanese when they fought against the Japanese aids to the resentment. The next incident would come when China took control of the island at the end of WWII. Much to the dissapointment of the Taiwanese people, the Chinese forces carried out ] and officials were extremely corrupted. It was a sharp contrast with the Japanese occupation, during which Japan sought to fully integrate Taiwan into itself as the "5th Island". Japanese officials, though strict, abided by the law, and life generally improved during the Japanese era. It should be noted that Japanese infrastructure is one of the key factors behind Taiwan's economic successes in later years.

			There is no section on the third major option - reunification under the ROC. Why not? This was the policy of the ROC, and essentially the option supported by the UN, until after 1972?] (]) 02:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
	Again, this about support for independence. We're not talking about the same China here. Furthermore, Qing officials would have been faced with further sanctions (and perhaps further wars with the Japanese) if they helped the Taiwanese. So they didn't like the KMT...this doesn't translate into refusal to deal with the communists. It only refers to the desire to shake off the old KMT symbols. Again, irrelevant.

			== External links modified ==
	:''Later, after Taiwan's seat in the UN Security Council was replaced by China, the PRC began to put pressure on governments to cut diplomatic relationships with Taiwan. Further, the PRC claims that it is acting in the interest of not only its own people but the people of Taiwan, and asserted that its more militant actions are directed only at supporters of Taiwanese independence, who are manipulating the population on Taiwan.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:''Because there is a general consensus in Taiwan that Taiwan/ROC is a sovereign state, such diplomatic pressures by the PRC are highly unpopular. Taiwan's being forced to use such titles as Chinese Taipei when participating in international events like Olympic Games has led many of Taiwanese to cheer for whatever nation competing against the Chinese during the event. When Bejing began a series of missile test launches in a bid to affect the 1996 elections result, most Taiwanese disregarded the claim that it was purely intended towards independence supporters, pointing out that there is no way for a bullet to differentiate between the two types. The fact that there is no clear definition as to who is an independence supporter fueled further anger.

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	This again sounds like a case for independence. We're not talking about reunification under the PRC here, but reunification in general.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211125957/http://newton.uor.edu/Departments%26Programs/AsianstudiesDept/china-taiwan.html to http://newton.uor.edu/Departments%26Programs/AsianStudiesDept/china-taiwan.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	:''Although most mainland Chinese would claim that their government would agree to talk about anything - not even ruling out letting Taiwan keep its military - as long as Taiwan accepts reunification, Taiwan has never received such offers officially. In addition, most people in Taiwan viewed China with deep suspicions, and believe that only "a baby is naive enough to believe that". The fact that China refuses to talk unless Taiwan agrees to the "one China policy" is often taken as sighs of Beijing's insincerity, since most Taiwanese considers China to be playing with words in an attempt to disguise its true intentions. Most Taiwanese rather protect their quasi sovereignty and believe that the choice of reunification proposed by China is no choice at all.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	the offer for Taiwan to keep its military was made explicitly in a speech made by Jiang Zemin. The word "often" is the only thing keeping this paragraph from outright declaring Beijing as insincere. The argument is not being made because it is Beijing who is calling Chen Shui-bian insincere, not the other way around. Chen has asked for peace talks (albeit not under the concept of One China). And what is "most Taiwanese" supposed to mean anyways? --]] 02:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
	I also removed:

			== Requested move 21 April 2018 ==
	:''The idea of '''chinese reunification''' itself is also a controversial topic. Even though the ROC government lead by ] did relocated from mainland China to Taiwan, whether ROC government legally recieved the sovereignty of Taiwan after Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan in 1952 is still a heated debate.

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	This is irrelevant. The statement is over the issue of the legitimacy of the Republic of China over Taiwan, not whether Taiwan should unify with the mainland. The Republic of China as well be a non-issue here. Furthermore, few people advocate this position so there is no "heated debate". --]] 08:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

			The result of the move request was: '''consensus not to move''' the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. ]<small>]</small> 23:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
	== Useless information ==
			----

			] → {{no redirect\|Cross-Strait unification}} – Per ] and ] (]). ] (]) 03:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
	I following (italicized) text was added:
			*'''Oppose''' there's more than one strait in the world. Stick to a meaningful and recognizable title. ] (]) 05:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
	:The two sides have been separated since the end of the ] in ], ''as Communist Party failed to control Taiwan due to the interuption of Korean War and the protection of U.S..''
			::There's more than one ] in the world, yet the ] is still called that, as is ]. ] (]) 11:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Both title means the same,so I don't see the significance of the move.And this is an unnecessary move and will cause confusion.] is the name used because it is the official expression of the both governments.The Channel Tunnel is called that because this WP is written in English so readers normally understand its meaning.However in Chinese WP it is called ''英法海底隧道'',literally ''British-French undersea tunnel'' .The proposed move will cause more confusion because few English WP users know 'Cross-Strait unification' means.--] (]) 05:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
			:: There are thousands of topics that the average reader doesn't know what it means. That's what WP is for, to inform. There is no Misplaced Pages policy of naming articles based on your assumption of what people know or not know. The average reader probably doesn't know China 'is not unified'. For those more educated, ''Chinese unification'' may refer to Han unification. There is however a policy of precise naming and we should follow it. ] (]) 12:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Per ] which advocates for the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. "Cross-Strait" can mean anywhere, "Chinese" is instantly clear. And no, "Channel Tunnel" is not a suitable comparison, as "Cross-Strait unification" is not the English ].<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 21:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The change would make the article title less understandable to a reader. ] (]) 23:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
			----
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

			=="enduring pro-Japan sentiment"?==
	It really doesn't matter why they did not succeed in taking Taiwan. The point is that they did not succeed, 1949 or afterwards. This is already stated in the original sentence. The added info is not necessary. --]] 18:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

			The lede (par. 3) names "enduring pro-Japan sentiment" as a reason for Taiwanese to oppose Chinese unification. While the footnoted articles establish that Taiwan and Japan are allies, and that there is substantial pro-Japan sentiment among ordinary Taiwanese, none of these sources allege that this in any way accounts for popular opposition to PRC overtures. It seems to me that the alliance with Japan (as with the USA) is largely a response to the threat of Chinese unification, rather than a reason for disliking the idea. Also, much if not most pro-Japan sentiment in Taiwan has not "lingered" from the colonial period, but is the result of popular cultural influences in the last few decades (similar to pro-South Korean sentiment, which is also strong here). Being pro-Japan would not rule out being pro-China, unless China insists that it is an either-or. Anyway, I propose that this phrase simply be stricken from the lede. --Dawud <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:and DONE. --Dawud <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	------

			== mainland China vs China in the lede ==
	Removed.

			CA, the MOS is clear here ]. We are to use China and Taiwan, this does not fall under the acceptable use cases for mainland China because HK and Macao are explicitly included in mainland China in this context (talk about muddying the waters). Also not sure what you mean by NPOV, can you clarify your point? ] (]) 16:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
	::Most polls show declining support for unification and increasing support for independence in the recent decade.

			To keep the current wording we would have to add the confusing (including Hong Kong and Macao) after mainland China. ] (]) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
	Actually they don't. Immediate unification has never been popular in Taiwan.
			:<del>{{tq\|China and Taiwan}} is explicitly non-NPOV, and this is one of the contexts where, per the MOS, {{tq\|In cases where there is ambiguity, use the more specific "People's Republic of China"}}, applies. I would be open to using the formulation with the formal wording, however.</del>
			:<del>As HK and Macao are mentioned only in passing vis-a-vis One Country, Two Systems, whereas this article has cited as a proxy for PRC policy that "Chinese (re-)unification" is {{tq\|specifically about Taiwan}}. Per, ], the lede should reflect the body's overwhelming focus away from HK and Macao. <span style="color: #8B0000">Caradhras</span>Aiguo (<small>]</small>)</del> 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
			::Sounds good, so we have consensus to use People’s Republic of China instead of mainland China? ] (]) 16:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
			:::<del>Yes, it does reflect what is proposed post-Macao handover. <span style="color: #8B0000">Caradhras</span>Aiguo (<small>]</small>)</del> 16:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
			::::Wonderful, I will make that minor change immediately. ] (]) 19:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

			== Interpretation ==
	] 05:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

			" is the potential formation of a political union of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (controlled by the Republic of China)."

			That's not true, at least very imprecise. Both the English and the Chinese terms listed refer to a unification of the mainland and Taiwan, that doesn't mean it has to involve PRC or ROC. In fact, in the original meaning of the term from 100-50 years ago, it was mainly used as to mean the unification under ROC only. Also, it could mean that Taiwan isn't controlled by ROC anymore.
	----------------------

			If I don't hear any arguments and objections against I'll correct it as per my understanding. ] (]) 17:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	This will probably have to be completely rewritten once the dust settles.
			:I think our problem is that Chinese unification has both a specific definition in the context of the cross straits relationship and a general definition in the context of Chinese nationalism/revanchism. It is my understanding that this page is only for the first of those two concepts. ] (]) 18:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
			::{{reply to\|Horse Eye Jack}} Sure, it's still not the same. For example, around the turn of the century proposals were floated by the PRC as to the formation of a "new" political entity compromising both sides of the strait, notably mentioned by Jiang Zemin. This is different to the wording of the original introduction. And as I understand your comment, it too is different to "Chinese nationalism/revanchism" as per this wouldnt directly include a claim to e.g. Mongolian territory. Obviously, the Taiwan movement and CCP sabre-rattling has led the talking to another direction. Still, this is my understand of what "Chinese unification" in this context, in this article ''actually'' means. I've edited, but am very much open to hear more arguments.] (]) 23:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

			== Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion ==
	] 05:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
			The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2022-10-22T15:23:48.179214 \| ROC Executive Yuan Logo.svg -->
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2022-10-22T15:23:48.179214 \| ROC Judicial Yuan Logo.svg -->
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2022-10-22T15:23:48.179214 \| ROC Legislative Yuan Seal.svg -->
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

			== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
	==Current proposals==
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
	The People's Republic of China maintains itself as the sole legitimate government of China and has proposed the unification of Taiwan under the principle of "]", as has been done for both ] and ]. According to the proposal outlined by President ] in 1995, Taiwan would also be permitted to keep its armed forces and to send a representative to be the "number two leader" in the PRC central government. Thus, under this proposal, the Republic of China would be made fully defunct. Outside of the government, less formal relationships, such as one in the draft ] have been proposed.
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2023-03-11T04:53:35.222829 \| Emblem of Control Yuan.svg -->
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 04:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

			== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
	Unification supporters in Taiwan no longer advocate the position that the Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China. Proposals among unification supporters in Taiwan have varied, with more extreme supporters in Taiwan such as ] advocating "One Country, Two Systems" while more moderate supporters arguing to uphold the status quo until the mainland democratizes and industrializes to the same level as Taiwan. In the ], independent candidate ] proposed a ]-style relation with the mainland (this was echoed by ] in 2004) along with a non-agression pact. In the ], ] proposed a ]-style relationship (though he later moderated his stance amid a tight race). Beijing rejected the plan claiming that Taiwan, being part of China already, is not a state and therefore could not form a federation with the PRC. Proposals for unification are not being actively floated in Taiwan and the issue remains moot since President ] has refused to acknowledge the ], which is required by Beijing for talks to begin.
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
	==Unify or Reunify==
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2023-03-11T05:53:27.988004 \| ROC Examination Yuan Seal.svg -->
	Article addresses everything except the main issue; is it "unification" or "reunification"? Thank you. ] 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 05:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

			==Pacific Forum International==
	Actually, I believe the correct term would be "]", but it is seldom used. --] 7 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)
			Not sure if the following links will be helpful for this article or a section of this article. Or someone may be able create a new article based on this. It is a Pacific Forum International study about the impact on the world after a successful invasion of Taiwan. I have a couple of reliable sources and one primary source: , , . ---] (]) 08:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
	:It's "annexation" as much as every government is a "regime". Unnecessarily portrayed in a negative light, but really a neutral term.
	:As for "unify" or "reunify", there are 3 ways you can look at it. It depends on who is being (re)unified.
	:#People's Republic of China. In this case, since the PRC has '''never''' held an inch of Taiwan, the correct word would be "unify".
	:#Republic of China. Since the ROC was the sole legitimate government over most of what is now the PRC, the accurate term here would be, I think, "reunify".
	:#China. Since China has pretty much always being a singular, unitary and centralised state over most of its history, in a supra-national concept of China, any annexation by any side would result in the reunification of '''China'''.
	:Right now, PRC is using the third viewpoint to further its claims, as it claims to be the sole legitimate government of '''China''', used in the supra-national sense. <br>-- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]\|]\|]\|]</sup> 02:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

	==Verifiability of one statement==
	<blockquote>''Analysts predict Beijing will go to great costs to obtain Taiwan, even if it means international isolation or economic destruction as the issue has been ingrained into the concept of Chinese nationalism.''</blockquote>
	Are there any solid indications (speeches, memoranda, etc) that PRChina will go to the length as described in this statement (economic destruction, international isolation) to achieve unification? If not, I believe this should be rewritten. <br>-- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]\|]\|]\|]</sup> 02:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:00, 12 February 2024

Liberation of Taiwan was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Chinese unification. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese unification article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taiwan High‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A section on HK and Macau

I propose a section "Pre-1997 HK", "1997-2047", and "Post-2047", to reflect the 50 years of "One country, two systems." My reasoning is that "Handover" was planned out 20 years ahead of 1997, and during the 50 year period, assimilation of customs territory, political systems, economic platforms, etc... is a step-by-step process, rather than one single event...You might also want to make a distinction between reunified in name only "ie. Hong Kong, China", but HK runs on a completely different governing and economic system than Mainland...and full scale reunification German style...

Whilst I can understand the rationale behind it, this is about reunifying the PRC and ROC. The One country, two systems has been adpoted by Hong Kong and Macau, also been proposed as a solution for the ROC/PRC refunication question, of which is mentioned, along with HK and Macau in the current proposals section. Hong Kong and Macau are SARs of the PRC, I'm not sure they need to be mentioned any more than they already are, though people are free to disagree, and I'm not sure how the 2047 and post-2047 would work, like 36 years into the future. --Tærkast (Communicate) 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Why 'reunification'?

I don't understand why the article is called 'Chinese reunification'. The Chinese term is more neutral and just means 'unification', as far as I can judge that (not a native speaker here). Shouldn't the English title reflect that instead of interpreting it from the POV of the PRC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.195.45.54 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, this sentence tries to explain the issue but I think it is misleading: "Many object to the term "reunification" as it implies that Taiwan is part of China" - it merely implies that Taiwan was a part of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.195.45.54 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Reunification" does not imply that Taiwan was part of China - it implies that mainland China was part of the Republic of China.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I am also not clear that "Reunification" is accurate since Taiwan was never under the PRC's authority. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's essentially PRC propaganda terminology, so slightly inappropriate for this Misplaced Pages article unless it is explicitly described as such. Taiwan has never been part of the PRC, though it was under the control of the KMT-led ROC from 1945 to 1996 (though, arguably, not under the ROC's sovereignty), and, prior to that, parts of the island were under Qing administration for over 200 years. The PRC inherited the ROC's seat of "China" at the United Nations (UN), so the UN officially agrees that the PRC is the successor state to the ROC, meaning the UN agrees that the PRC inherits the ROC's historical territorial claims. However, I'm not sure whether the UN ever even historically recognised Taiwan as being part of the ROC in the first place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Mongolia

The ROC still claims Mongolia, there is no discussion of this in the article. Charles Essie (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The ROC doesn't still claim Mongolia. One may argue that the claim is in the ROC Constitution, but it doesn't list or define the national territories. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Name of article --> Unification of China?_Unification_of_China?-2014-08-10T07:29:00.000Z">

Why is the article named Cross-Strait Unification, when "Cross-Strait" is a term that is mostly used in the Chinese language context, and meaningful only for people of China and Taiwan themselves? Outside of that context for both parties, I believe the concept is just called "Chinese unification" or "Unification of China". Also I think "Unification of China" is better so it's clear we're talking about the political entities rather than culturally or the Chinese diaspora. It would be better that "Cross-Strait unification" be a redirect than article title, "Unification of China", with a hatnote for "Unification of China (disambiguation)". Mistakefinder (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)_Unification_of_China?"> _Unification_of_China?">

I went ahead with the move to "Chinese Unification" and created "Chinese unification (disambiguation). If anyone sees any issues with this, let me know. Mistakefinder (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The move from "Chinese reunification" to "Cross-strait unification" was a partisan and undiscussed move by User:Uaat, and I was originally planning to move it back to "Chinese reunification" where it originally was located. If Uaat does not like the current title, he should start a WP:RM instead of making sudden controversial changes. The previous title had been in use for many years, and any proposed change needs proper consensus-building first. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reunification" is a better term than "unification", German unification and German reunification are 2 different articles because they're completely different, "Chinese unification" would probably be better fit for the Qin dynasty unifying all of the Chinese nations into a single state.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to have been a decision made on the naming without consensus here. I would vote for 'Chinese reunification' as @Benlisquare: noted, which seems to be the logical naming. Mountain 10:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chinese Unification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060711213903/http://www.noticias.info:80/Archivo/2004/200411/20041116/20041116_40109.shtm to http://www.noticias.info/Archivo/2004/200411/20041116/20041116_40109.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reunification under ROC

There is no section on the third major option - reunification under the ROC. Why not? This was the policy of the ROC, and essentially the option supported by the UN, until after 1972?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese unification. 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/20041211125957/http://newton.uor.edu/Departments%26Programs/AsianstudiesDept/china-taiwan.html to http://newton.uor.edu/Departments%26Programs/AsianStudiesDept/china-taiwan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Chinese unification → Cross-Strait unification – Per WP:PRECISION and WP:NDESC (Chinese unification (disambiguation)). Szqecs (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose there's more than one strait in the world. Stick to a meaningful and recognizable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There's more than one channel in the world, yet the Channel Tunnel is still called that, as is Cross-Strait relations. Szqecs (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Both title means the same,so I don't see the significance of the move.And this is an unnecessary move and will cause confusion.Cross-Strait relations is the name used because it is the official expression of the both governments.The Channel Tunnel is called that because this WP is written in English so readers normally understand its meaning.However in Chinese WP it is called 英法海底隧道,literally British-French undersea tunnel .The proposed move will cause more confusion because few English WP users know 'Cross-Strait unification' means.--113.128.150.82 (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There are thousands of topics that the average reader doesn't know what it means. That's what WP is for, to inform. There is no Misplaced Pages policy of naming articles based on your assumption of what people know or not know. The average reader probably doesn't know China 'is not unified'. For those more educated, Chinese unification may refer to Han unification. There is however a policy of precise naming and we should follow it. Szqecs (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Per WP:PRECISION which advocates for the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. "Cross-Strait" can mean anywhere, "Chinese" is instantly clear. And no, "Channel Tunnel" is not a suitable comparison, as "Cross-Strait unification" is not the English WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The change would make the article title less understandable to a reader. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"enduring pro-Japan sentiment"?

The lede (par. 3) names "enduring pro-Japan sentiment" as a reason for Taiwanese to oppose Chinese unification. While the footnoted articles establish that Taiwan and Japan are allies, and that there is substantial pro-Japan sentiment among ordinary Taiwanese, none of these sources allege that this in any way accounts for popular opposition to PRC overtures. It seems to me that the alliance with Japan (as with the USA) is largely a response to the threat of Chinese unification, rather than a reason for disliking the idea. Also, much if not most pro-Japan sentiment in Taiwan has not "lingered" from the colonial period, but is the result of popular cultural influences in the last few decades (similar to pro-South Korean sentiment, which is also strong here). Being pro-Japan would not rule out being pro-China, unless China insists that it is an either-or. Anyway, I propose that this phrase simply be stricken from the lede. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.61.249 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

and DONE. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:1004:1653:A9A2:841A:C9E:5262 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

mainland China vs China in the lede

CA, the MOS is clear here Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Modern Chinese polities. We are to use China and Taiwan, this does not fall under the acceptable use cases for mainland China because HK and Macao are explicitly included in mainland China in this context (talk about muddying the waters). Also not sure what you mean by NPOV, can you clarify your point? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To keep the current wording we would have to add the confusing (including Hong Kong and Macao) after mainland China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

China and Taiwan is explicitly non-NPOV, and this is one of the contexts where, per the MOS, In cases where there is ambiguity, use the more specific "People's Republic of China", applies. I would be open to using the formulation with the formal wording, however.

As HK and Macao are mentioned only in passing vis-a-vis One Country, Two Systems, whereas this article has cited Xinhua as a proxy for PRC policy that "Chinese (re-)unification" is specifically about Taiwan. Per, MOS:LEDE, the lede should reflect the body's overwhelming focus away from HK and Macao. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, so we have consensus to use People’s Republic of China instead of mainland China? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

~~Yes, it does reflect what is proposed post-Macao handover. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language)~~ 16:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful, I will make that minor change immediately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation

" is the potential formation of a political union of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (controlled by the Republic of China)."

That's not true, at least very imprecise. Both the English and the Chinese terms listed refer to a unification of the mainland and Taiwan, that doesn't mean it has to involve PRC or ROC. In fact, in the original meaning of the term from 100-50 years ago, it was mainly used as to mean the unification under ROC only. Also, it could mean that Taiwan isn't controlled by ROC anymore.

If I don't hear any arguments and objections against I'll correct it as per my understanding. EnTerbury (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think our problem is that Chinese unification has both a specific definition in the context of the cross straits relationship and a general definition in the context of Chinese nationalism/revanchism. It is my understanding that this page is only for the first of those two concepts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Sure, it's still not the same. For example, around the turn of the century proposals were floated by the PRC as to the formation of a "new" political entity compromising both sides of the strait, notably mentioned by Jiang Zemin. This is different to the wording of the original introduction. And as I understand your comment, it too is different to "Chinese nationalism/revanchism" as per this wouldnt directly include a claim to e.g. Mongolian territory. Obviously, the Taiwan movement and CCP sabre-rattling has led the talking to another direction. Still, this is my understand of what "Chinese unification" in this context, in this article actually means. I've edited, but am very much open to hear more arguments.EnTerbury (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Emblem of Control Yuan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

ROC Examination Yuan Seal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Pacific Forum International

Not sure if the following links will be helpful for this article or a section of this article. Or someone may be able create a new article based on this. It is a Pacific Forum International study about the impact on the world after a successful invasion of Taiwan. I have a couple of reliable sources and one primary source: , , . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories: