Talk:Chinese unification: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:46, 3 September 2009 editBenlisquare (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,176 edits refering to prev edit: do not delete or replace others' messages. and place new messages at the bottom← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:00, 12 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,334,730 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
(91 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{afd-merged-from\|Liberation of Taiwan\|Liberation of Taiwan\|27 January 2022}}
	{{WPCHINA\|class=start\|importance=Top}}
			{{Talk header}}
	{{WPTAIWAN\|class=start\|importance=High}}
			{{controversial}}
	{{WPTWGOVT\|class=start\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Politics~~\|class=~~Start~~\|~~importance~~=~~mid}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=mid}}
	{{talkheader}}
			{{WikiProject China\|importance=Top}}
	==Taiwan Annexation==
			{{WikiProject Taiwan\|importance=High}}
	This should be added as forwarding to this page. A lot of TIers in America have been calling it that instead of the politically charged "Chinese reunification". --] (]) 05:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
			}}
	:] much? --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> \| <small>—] ] </small> 06:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

			== A section on HK and Macau ==
	::Done.
			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...
	::Unless a forward is going to something in order to make a point even though the subject isn't the best, like forwarding "Taiwan annexation" to ] rather than to "chinese reunification", it is hard to fault a forward for pov. A reader ought to be redirected to where the information is regardless of the name.
	::Where POV and NPOV are more of an issue is in the naming of the article that contains the information. There certainly is a valid question as to whether "Chinese reunification" is the best name for this article or whether a more neutral name that is commonly used is available.
	::Unfortunately, the loudest and most unified voice on the subject at this time is the PRC, so the term they prefer is probably the one most commonly used. ] (]) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

			: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)
	::Of course if you believe there is enough information specific to annexation of Taiwan to deserve a separate article, you can always write one. ] (]) 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

	== ~~Older~~ ~~discussions~~ ==		== 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Please explain whether Chinese reunification means:
	#incorporating Taiwan into Communist China; or,
	#establishing a new country out of China and Taiwan

			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-->
	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?

			"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)
	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?

			I am also not clear that "Reunification" is accurate since Taiwan was never under the PRC's authority. ] (]) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
	--] 14:33, 2 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 ==
	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)
			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? ==
	Mainland and Taiwan are legally one country China. Reunification from PRC point of view is to eliminate the ROC fraction in the unresolved Chinese Civil War bringing the entire nation under single national government. Due to Chinese Civil War two politial identities (PRC and ROC) exist in Chinese territory today. No legal document to officially end the Chinese Civil War has ever been signed. Until 1990 both claim to be the sole legal government of China. The UN recognized ROC as the legal government of China before 1971. After UN resolution 2758 was passed in 1971, the UN recognized PRC as the legal government to represent China in place of ROC. ] 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
			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 ==
	-----
			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:
	''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)
			*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.
	:I don't see your point about doubletalk. The unificationist parties make up the ].

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	: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.

			Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 10:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
	: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)

	== ~~Motivations~~ ~~and~~ ~~Prospects~~ ==		== 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?] (]) 02:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
	Removed:

			== External links modified ==
	:''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.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	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.

			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:
	:''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.
			*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.
	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.

	:''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.

	:''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.

	This again sounds like a case for independence. We're not talking about reunification under the PRC here, but reunification in general.

	:''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.

	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)

	I also removed:

	:''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.

	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)

	== Useless information ==

	I following (italicized) text was added:
	: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..''

	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)


	------

	Removed.

	::Most polls show declining support for unification and increasing support for independence in the recent decade.

	Actually they don't. Immediate unification has never been popular in Taiwan.

	] 05:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


	----------------------

	This will probably have to be completely rewritten once the dust settles.

	] 05:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

	----------------------
	Removed ''little'' in

	“…As a result, it (Beijing) has spared ''little'' effort to promote cross-strait economic and cultural exchange…”

	It’s a bias statement. We are not here to judge if Beijing has put in ''little'' effort where Taipei puts in ''great effort'' to keep the status quo (or whatever the otherwise.) Both sides are very passionate toward this issue and therefore, bias statements like this need to be corrected. ] 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Current proposals==
	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.

	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.
	==Unify or Reunify==
	Article addresses everything except the main issue; is it "unification" or "reunification"? Thank you. ] 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

	Actually, I believe the correct term would be "]", but it is seldom used. --] 7 July 2005 13:45 (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)

	::Actually, your third point is not true. Chinese history is one of disunity, punctuated by periods of unity. That's why you have the Warring States, the Three Kingdoms, the Sixteen Kingdoms etc. Even during the great Sung dynasty, China was divided (between that regime and the Chin, Liao, and Hsia). Not even the ROC was ever able to unite China (Warlords such as Yan Xishan were independent until 1949). That's why one of the great boasts of the PRC is that it has finally united China. ] 07:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

	::: Your logic is flawed. China have been unified many times, and disunified many more times. This is why you have the different dynasties, starting with Qin. The chinese culture had spread which redefine what exactly is "china", but one thing is for certain, whatever period of disunification will always follow by a period of unification. So it had been for thousands of years and so it will be again one day, just give it time. ] 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


	Semantically, the Chinese "中國統一," used by both sides to refer to the issue, means Chinese ''unification'' and not ''reunification''. ] 02:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

	do you even use the word "annexation" for civil war? ] 19:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::I don't know. From a political point of view the PRC can only boast it has unified ''China'' when ] also becomes part of the PRC (the movement, believe it or not, has gathered steam amongst Mongolian nationals), because it was, in a supra-national sense, ever since the ] (although there are differing viewpoints on whether the Yuan was a Chinese dynasty or just another part of the vast ]). Personally I think it is easier to argue for Tibet's independence than to defend Mongolia's (''de jure'') or Taiwan's (''de facto'').

	:::Meanwhile, the views of both the Communists and the Kuomintang both hold that China has always been one, despite separation of administration. In this sense the term "reunification" is ] to the two parties (but not necessarily accurate), but it is not politically correct, as it has become very visible lately, to be used by Taiwan's current administration. ]+(]) 08:04, 24 March 2007 (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)
	::several PLA and CCP official consistantly made such claims, but it is always hard to tell if it was a PR thing or the true intend of the leadership. ] 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

	== Reorganization needed ==

	I've restored the "Current proposals" section (which was removed last May) and added info about pan-blue visits to the mainland and the anti-secession law. However, the section is more like an extension of the "development" section since there really arent any "''current'' proposals". A reorganization of those two sections is probably needed.--] 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

	== ... the only outstanding issue ... ?? ==

	:''As Hong Kong and Macau have been reunited with mainland China under the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China, the only outstanding issue under active debate is between the mainland and Taiwan''

	Wha-huh? I hardly think this is adequate, as the expectations of the various peoples -- both those still ''in the process'' of unification with PRC ''and'' those trying to judge whether unification is a "good idea" -- should be addressed by the article.

	How can the expectations, fulfilled or not, and experiences of Hong Kong and Macau ''not'' affect the debate within Taiwan? That is, how can you talk about the debate of future possibilities without talking about the disappointments and disillusionments of current days?

	More provocatively, can you say that the phrase could be ''undeniably'' changed to "As Hong Kong and Macau have been ''successfully'' reunited with ..." ?

	] 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

	*There is much territory that both governments of China claim and are in foreign hands. Taiwan and Continent is not the only outstanding issue.--] 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Support of unification by mainland China ==
	I really like the way the paragraph is written; short, concise, and emotionally powerful. --] 23:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

	== opinion ==

	since this is a discussion forum, i juss wanna say that the future of any independent country's future lies in the hands of its own citizens. and the overwhelming majority of the taiwanese people oppose china and in fact, lotsa taiwanese don't consider themselves to be chinese which is more or less true since most of da population have been in taiwan for over 500 years, others have foreign ancestry such as Dutch Portuguese, pacific islander, aboriginals, etc. it is hard fo china to justify its claim of taiwan and gain for support of taiwan. it ain't reunification, it's invasion. it is kinda like claimin china should rule japan and korea cause the ppl from these countries originated from china as well.--] 00:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
	:according to poll, support for independence is only a percent or two better; the "majority" want status quo. so i don't where you been getting your numbers unless you automatically add status quo to independence numbers. also, the popularly refered to "taiwanese" are actually fujian descendent, their language remains largely similiar to the ones used by the mainland. i won't deny a noticable japanese influence, culture and blood from it's colonial past; but the others are either history or minority.
	:: If you want to play with people's "roots" you must define what Chinese means, make it relevant and believable. Taiwanese were forced to speak Japanese after the Japanese invasion and many older Taiwanese speak Japanese fluently and Mandarin badly if not at all. Taiwanese were forced to speak Mandarin after the Republic of China invasion in a similar manner as the invading Japanese did and is mentioned in the Taiwanization article. The fact that the Taiwanese dialect similar to the Fujian dialect is spoken in Taiwan does not link it to the current regime of the PRC. Any discussions of "roots" is POV and nothing to do with Taiwanese government submitting to the current political regime of China which is what this article is about. While we speak about the definition of terms, under most peoples definition "independence" is the status quo in Taiwan and you can't distinguish between them. Own currency, own government, own military, distinct borders etc. These polls that you talk about are about a declaration of independence that will hurt the sensitive ego of the PRC government , cut off any future prospect of unification (because it could be a good outcome) and bring a potential missile attack/military invasion of Taiwan. Also if you really understood polls in Taiwan you know they mean nothing as they are all partisan. ] 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
	:you should note that japan and korea has completely seperate culture and language, also when China lay claim of taiwan after WWII, it was undisputed by anyone including the locals before the influx of mainlander whom do not speak fujian dialect after KMT's defeat. hence one cannot say taiwan was 'invaded' as taiwan has yet to officially declare itself '''not part of china''' since WWII.
	:: If the victims of 228 were alive they would have something to say about an "undisputed" claim. No one else made "claim" to Taiwan because nobody else had interest. And the term "claim" really can't be used here because nobody has ever made any formal "claim" to Taiwan. What has happened is a political group and those loyal to it (the ROC government) were exiled from China and the most comfortable place to flee to was Taiwan. There was a "power vacuum" left over in Taiwan after the Japanese were kicked out, the ROC was happy to fill it, and nobody else cared. It may not have been army's marching on Baghdad but it's still an invasion. Forgetting the past for a minute, there are cultural differences between Chinese and Taiwanese. Foods, past times, socio economic conditions all differ and Taiwanese people even speak a different Mandarin to those on the mainland. Japan and Korea's cultural differences maybe more obvious but are no more significant. ] 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
	:if you support self-determination, it is a good thing. but the majority are polled to support neither and only about 1/4 has voted for either options, is it really enough to determine the fate of taiwan? ] 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	:: Self determination in Taiwan is not about the distinguishing Taiwanese people from Chinese people on the mainland. So polls on "independence" are irrelevant. Self determination in Taiwan is about throwing off the shackles of Chinese colonialists. The colonialists being the ROC regime under Chang Kai Shek not the PRC. The remnants of the former colonial regime are the opposition party in Taiwan and they are continually losing relevance. They are doing anything to cling on to it and PRC propaganda is as much of a political tool to them as it is to the PRC government. "I won't declare independence" is all really the KMT has to offer over the current DDP. The issue of Taiwan and China reunification is a concept invented by the PRC regime in order to inspire a Nazi style nationalism thus keeping the Chinese people's minds away from the corruption and civil abuses happening within their borders. Something like this should be mentioned in this article. There was good interview with the vice president of Taiwan about this. I will find it. ] 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
	::: ] is a controversial character both in Taiwan and on the mainland, and probably would be internationally if she were more known. Calling China a "Nazi-style nationalism" is terminology even China's most bitter enemies have refrained from using. Your argument is horribly opinionated, you appear to distinguish PRC and Chiang, yet you interchangeably refer to them as the same entity. In addition, your points are vastly ignorant of most historical circumstances, dating all the way back to the late ]. By your logic, ]/Koxinga, the ] and ] were, in fact, all invaders of an aboriginal Taiwanese society completely separate from that of China. From a historical perspective it is actually much easier to argue for the cultural and political separation of Tibet than it is to argue that of Taiwan. ]+(]) 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::: I concede that my reference to Nazism is a over the top but parts of the analogy do ring true. I don't understand how I have interchangably used KMT and PRC to mean the same thing. I use PRC when I mean the governing regime in China, I use KMT when I mean the Chinese regime exiled to Taiwan. I use Chinese when I refer to people who call themselves Chinese. Chiang and Koxinga's status as invaders can't be disputed. Land was taken from the orignal occupiers by force. What would you call it if it wasn't an invasion? "Historical circumstances" are always twisted to push an agenda. What is the agenda? Why "(re)unify China"? Is it to make the lives of people on both sides of the strait happier? Is it to gut Taiwan of it's wealth and steal it's resources? Is it because the PRC can't go back on it's dogma without "Losing face"? Why would Taiwan seek recognition as a sovereign entity? Is it because President Chen is madman or because the people of Taiwan are best served by their own international representation? This section is labelled opinion so I assumed "opinionated" was welcome here. Your opinion surrounding Tibet seems to be that it was liberated rather than invaded. ] 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

	== PRC POV!!! ==

	This article is written completely from the PRC perspective and presents only the Taiwan question. What about ]? ]? ]? Hmm? The PRC has renounced claims to these areas, but the ROC has not. As such, all of the above are "candidates" for reunification, and need to be included. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]!</sup> 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Reunification is more accurate and consistent ==

	Reunification is more accurate name than "unification" and it is consistent with the article title, ''']'''. The term "Chinese reunification" is the most common term used. ]

	:Supporters of Taiwanese independence do not feel that there is a bond with China that they are "reunifying" with. That is why the term was qualified in the initial description for the introduction. And let's be clear that this was RevolverOcelotX's change to the article as it was. ] 00:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Most people, even Taiwan independence supporters use the term "Reunification" rather than "unification". We should keep the term consistent with the article title '''Chinese reunification'''. "Reunification" is the more accurate and commonly used term, this was the term commonly used by both the ROC and PRC. ] please gather consensus before changing every instance of "reunification" to "unification" ]

	:::Anyone can glance at the to see that he is lying, and that he is the one who is changing the words without prior consensus. "Unification" was dominant before RevolverOcelotX edited this page. "Consistency" would demand a further conformity to "unification", which is a neutral term. ] 00:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	:The article should use the dominant term in English. The Chinese is ambiguous, but in English, reunification is by far the most common term. Mention of unification in the intro should suffice.
	:If you check deeper into the history, you should see that reunification was used long before it was changed without discussion. but this should not be the issue: focus on product, not process--] 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	::You are right, Jiang, it appears in older versions; however it was misleading of ROX to characterize this as ''my'' change when it was him doing so. I won't revert it further. However, are you not concerned that the term is being used to push subtle POV on this question? Perhaps it could be moved to ]. ] 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::''']''' is by far the most common term used in English. We should use the most common term in Misplaced Pages and keep it consistent throughout the article. ]

	::::"Unification" is also POV because it implies Taiwan was never a part of China. The English language makes this unavoidable. The best we can do is to describe in the text any discrepancies (which are not really an issue in Chinese). --] 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Can you explain? Is there something you would propose? ] 01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	Its POV either way. The fact is taiwan was never part of the current China. But anyway, the best thing we can do now is make the article NPOV--] 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

	It is not "POV either way." The term "unification" is neutral. It is an exact translation of the Chinese term 中國統一 used by the PRC, the ROC, and Taiwan Independence supporters. The Chinese term unambiguously translates as "unification." The way to say "REunification" in Chinese is. The objection that pro-(re)unification advocates have with the term is that "reunification" is so strongly POV that any suggestion to use another term, however neutral, is seen as advocacy of an anti-(re)unification position. This should not be. At the very least, we need to mention the controversy over the term. We need to be honest. There has been alot of fantastic and unverifiable assertions in this section alone (e.g. "Most people, even Taiwan independence supporters use the term 'Reunification' rather than 'unification'", "'Chinese reunification' is by far the most common term used in English") I'm glad these statements are in the discussion section and not in the article. Misplaced Pages should be a place for educating not propagandizing.
	] 06:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

	:What is the Chinese term for "reunification"? How is "reunification" POV? How is it not the dominant form? Claims here should be cited. I just don't see the point being made here.--] 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

	::The Chinese term for "reunification" is 中國再統一. Sorry about that. I have trouble making Chinese characters.

	::The reason why "reunification" is POV is clear. It presumes that Taiwan is a part of China and that the current situation is somehow abnormal. This presumption is inappropriate since the whole issue is whether Taiwan is a part of China or not. Whenever you use "re-" words (such as "return", "retrocession" etc.) in a debate of this kind you are substituting a conclusion for the premise. It is a form of ''circulus in probando'' fallacy. You admitted this yourself a few remarks above (22 June 2006) when you stated "' Unification' is '''also''' (emphasis added) POV because it implies Taiwan was never a part of China." This remark shows that you understand the POV issues with the term "reunification."

	::You asked "How is it not the dominant form? Claims here should be cited." Here you clearly apply more rigorous standards to those who disagree with you than to those who share your views. First of all, it is the burden of those who make claims to support those claims with evidence. It is not my burden to disprove them. Where is the evidence that "reunification" ''is'' the dominant form? This unsubstantiated claim has been repeated several times here without any objection from you.

	::But here it goes. Here is the evidence that it is NOT the "dominant form." "Unification" is the preferred English translation for 統一 used by both supporters of unification (with the exeption of the PRC) and opponents alike. Some examples of pro-unification usages are the ROC's "Guidelines for National Unification" and its "National Unification Council" and in names like the New York Association for the Peaceful Unification of China (NYAPUC). If "unification" is so biased and such a dirty word, these groups would not use it.

	::"Unification" is also used by major news outlets worldwide like CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/14/world/main679849.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories), Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/world/2005/03/04/58523.html), BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4819312.stm), and Yahoo (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060304/3/2gu4z.html) and by think tanks such as the Association of Asia Research (http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/982.html). Just do a search of the web for "China (or Taiwan) Unification" and "China (or Taiwan) reunification" and you will see what the "dominant form" is. About the only entities that invariably uses the form "reunification" is the PRC government and its supporters.

	::"Unification" is a completely neutral and benign word that is being objected to because some here want to use this article for propaganda purposes. "Unification" is not the opposing POV word for "reunification." Words such as "annexation" are, and no one here is suggesting that we replace "reunification" with "annexation," although someone probably should.] 05:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I still fail to see how the above lengthy literature can succeed in arguing that the word "Unification" is nuetral, while "Reunification" is not. Their widespread usage does not make any indication that they are nuetral. Is 中國再統一 the only term to refer to Chinese unification? How about the even more widespread reference to the "Taiwanese ''return''" (台湾''回归''), which implies its prior association with the mainland?--] 11:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

	::::I apologise for the long remark. I agree: Widespread use is not the standard to use. The standard is to use a word that is neutral. I was just responding to the unsupported assertions being made here (such as that its use is the most widespread and that it cannot be unambiguously translated into English) to use "reunification" to push a POV.] 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::While I agree that the term "Reunification" is not nuetral, I do also agree that "Unification" isnt nuetral either. Attempting to use one over the other by claiming greater "nuetrality" will need alot more factual evidence for it to pass, and I forsee this to be a relatively difficult endeavour.--] 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Introduction needs shortening ==

	The article has a large, off-putting introduction. A picture wouldn't go amiss either, IMO. ] 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	:The size is adequate. See the guidelines at ].--] 20:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	Size may be appropriate, but the section does fall short of the guidelines ] and is heavily POV. One of the most obvious controversies, as is apparent from this discussion page, is with the term "reunification" itself. This controversy is not mentioned at all, even though the guidelines state that the lead section should include "mention of its notable controversies."
	] 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Support \| Internationally ==

	IMHO, the 'support' section needs an 'International' section, to outline the general consensus outside of Taiwan and China. From my standpoint, this is that Internationally, Taiwan has been popularly viewed as an independant, sovreign nation for many years. While practically all countries officially refrain from giving Taiwan this status, this is done because of political pressure from China. Many countries have offices or consulates in Taiwan, and these are given embassy status in all but name.] 06:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	: it is view as ROC by other nations, no country really care about "taiwan's status"; so long as their trade and other programs(including military) '''are not affected'''. most countries including US even warned against seperatist from moving toward seperation. these countries do so not just because of pressure from china, but because they know if war or confrontation of any kind broke out, it will affect their trade and interest in asia. there is no benefit to anyone for supporting taiwan, other than to piss off PRC (like during the korean war) and right now PRC is acting all goodie and nice, so the best seperatist could hope for international support is that PRC making another mistake 'again'. else, i doubt anyone would support any form of Republic of Taiwan.
	: to just sum up my view is, everyone like it as it is. including PRC and ROC even if they claim otherwise, it is just to save face over something they still can't do anything about... yet! no? :P ] 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

	- Sure Taiwan is isolated in the international areana. There is no way Taiwan can do other than working out more time to keep it's current status. It is highly unlikely to see Taiwan independence to be a fact, because it has zero international support including the United States, it's major behind-the-scene supporter (as if the Administration according to US national interest wants to) and defensive- arms provider and coordinator(according to several US domestic Act by US Congress). It is impossible for Taiwan to join UN and WHO (which is under UN), because PRC will veto it, but APEC already has similar WHO mechanism in which Taiwan a member. In 2005, PRC passed Anti- Secession Law formulates legal basis to use non-peaceful means to Taiwan if it declares independence which links movement of Taiwan independence with war in law.

	So, it is in the best interest for all parties and individuals involved to keep the status- quo about Taiwan's status.

	== Support for independence ==

	Re:
	#The link to ] is relevant and should not be delinked.
	#The claim that "independence far exceed the support for (re)-unification" is baseless. See for one poll, among many, that does not suggest a vast gap. "In Taiwan, support for reunification has varied." because of conflicting poll numbers. see
	#That Chinese reunification is "also known as Chinese expansionism or annexation of Taiwan" is unsupported. What are the Chinese terms? And why introduce this in this section and not in the lead?--] 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

	Jamestown.org is obviously a biased source. The other source, I'm not sure if it's neutral or not shows that 33% support immediate independence and 21% support Chinese expanionism. Now it is misleading to say that it has vary 'cause like 25ish something support status quo, which is more or less saying Taiwan shouldn't be invaded by China. (the status quo is pretty much the same as independence except a proper UN recognition, mostly due to suppression from China) Also note that 33 to 21 is quite a wide margin if you add up all the 23 million people living in Taiwan. The wording is obviously flawed. And Chinese expanionism and annexation of Taiwan are of course, from the perspective of Taiwanese. It will be preferable if it's in the lead. --] 02:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Dismissing facts by calling the source bias does not do it. That is a logical fallacy. You can say how the source is biased, and why we need to be cautious, but simply dismissing it outright is not a legitimate argument. You can say, "The Taipei Times has an editorial stance that is in favor of the pan-Green coalition, so we must examine whether the poll questions were biased towards supporting Taiwan independence." You cannot say, "The Taipei Times is biased towards the pan-Green coalition, so the poll numbers are false."

	:We cannot really say anything here because different polls and survey given very different answers. it is 80% status quo and 10% each for independence and reunification.

	:I'm going to remove the unverfied and disputed statement until someone here is willing to provide sources.--] 02:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	:The statement is actually unnecessary since percentages are provided later on in the same section. A better topic sentence for the paragraph would be "In Taiwan, there is no consensus on the issue of independence or reunification."
	:If you believe "Chinese expanionism" and "Chinese annexation" are alternative terms used in Taiwan, then please provide evidence supporting this claim--] 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	It is actually unnecessary so it's good that you removed it. But if you scroll down the article, Chinese expanionism and annexation by China are in the actual article so it is safe to say that they are official term from a neutral perspective, but sure wiki doesn't self-reference so check out this link ]--] 07:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	:I found none of those terms in your link. Please provide evidence of mainstream usage. --] 09:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	:"expanionism" and "annexation", while tolerable, has no purpose in cluttering the introduction. Also "annexation by China" implies that it is an external body receiving the "annexation". --] 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

	:: I do not think "expansionism" and "annexation" are tolerable at all in the heading of the artcle. Aside from cluttering, they are highly charged terms that are at the center of the debate about the nature of unification. I think they are appropriate in the second paragraph which illuminates the opposing views. I reiterate that "unification" is the most neutral term, but in the interest of consensus, "'unification' or 'reunification'" can be used in the heading. I've reverted the article to my last edit. I suggest everyone discuss POV issues here rather than just summarily accusing edits of POV without explanation.] 05:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

	:::I really don't see why "unification" should be preserved over "reunification." Misplaced Pages policy is to use common names. As the ] shows, without convincing evidence to prefer one over the other, there is no consensus to change the term in the article. Some of your changes also violate the MoS regarding capitalization non-proper nouns (e.g. "reunification"), insertion of Chinese characters to regular terms and terms with accompanying articles, and equation of "People's Republic of China" with "Chinese" in pipelinking. It is also not necessary to duplicate links in the "see also" section. --] 07:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

	:::Agree with Jiang. Looking at the articles under ], and taking into account that this would ] China is unified, "'''reunification'''" is clearly more appropriate. --] 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

	Whether Taiwan belong to China is in constant debate, so China's aggression can be interpret as an act of annexation. To Taiwan, China is an external force.--] 20:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Please stop making stuff up. Source your statements. These terms have to be in widespread usage for them to be included in the lead, or at all.--] 01:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

	Who's the one making stuff up? We're going in a circle here. I already provided a link and I doubt you read it. Annexation and expanionism have to be added in order to adhere to NPOV.--] 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

	:It's not in the link. If it is, then quote the full sentence here. This still doesn't justify mass reverting a bunch of edits.--] 02:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

	] explicitly states the term Chinese annexation.--] 04:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

	:That source is from independence activists, who clearly have a biased point of view. --] 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Why are you mass reverting? The terms are already mentioned in the second paragraph. There is no evidence of prevalent or common use for any of these terms, and no evidence of them being rendered in the Chinese language.--] 02:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Dear 'mr hustla', despite the fact that your reverts are based on questionable premises, you have (especially recently) insisted in blatently pushing your POV through without even bothering to explain why in this talkpage. Your edit summaries state there should be 'new discussions' with regards to any changes/reverts to the article; however, in observing the history of the talkpage and the article, it appears that you have not followed your own 'advice'. If there is any new evidence to support your claims, do try to post them here first, it would make the lives of everyone easier. Good day to you. ] 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Mongolia ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	Perhaps we should include a link or something in written form to a new Mongolian movement of "unification with China"? ]+(]) 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

			== Requested move 21 April 2018 ==
	Certified.Gangsta appears to think that is "removing relevant links"; if you look closely (as apparently he did not) you will see that exactly one link is being removed, to "Proposed countries" which I happen to think is not relevant, and one link is being changed, because I think we should have the same level links to PRC and ROC categories. --] 08:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	He's also so quick with the revert button he didn't notice I ''sorted'' the categories. --] 09:02, 17 February 2007 (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)
	:What do you mean, appears to "think"{{Fact\|date=April 2008}}? --] (]) 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
			----

			] → {{no redirect\|Cross-Strait unification}} – Per ] and ] (]). ] (]) 03:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
	::Lol. You'll get in trouble for that ... --] 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' there's more than one strait in the world. Stick to a meaningful and recognizable title. ] (]) 05:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
			::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"?==
	== Certified.gangsta's revert ==

			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-->
	As is typical, Certified.gangsta has reverted without bothering to think about it. Apparently he thinks that this '''is''' a discussion forum and people should be allowed to debate all kinds of garbage not related to the actual article. This is not important enough to edit-war over, but I strongly suggest that other editors refrain from abusing the talk page. --] 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

			== mainland China vs China in the lede ==
	Given that the article says the term "reunification" is controversial, does it make sense to use it throughout the article when another term like "unification" works just as well? Of course the article isn't titled "Chinese unification", but "Chiense reunification", so it might be odd to use "unification". Perhaps if we used "Chinese Reunification" as the proper name of a movement, but I don't know that it really is a proper name. Any ideas? ] (]) 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

			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)
	== Removed paragraph suggesting 2012 date ==

			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)
	I have removed the paragraph suggesting CPC or KMT plans for reunification in 2012.
			:<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 ==
	The sources offered in the paragraph are as follows:

			" is the potential formation of a political union of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (controlled by the Republic of China)."
	* CHNQiang = an extremist, nationalist website, where the link is now broken.
	* VenChina = a Chinese-Venezuelan news site, where the link is now also broken.
	* Blog.ifeng = a blog hosted on the PhoenixTV website. While PhoenixTV is a mainstream news organizations, its website allows '''anyone''' to register for a blog of their own.
	* bbs.cctv and bbs1.people = two blog posts. Moreover, one of the forum posts repeats verbatim the claims made in the PhoenixTV-hosted blog.

			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.
	With regards to the PhoenixTV blog entry, I have gone and looked up the source, which is here:

			If I don't hear any arguments and objections against I'll correct it as per my understanding. ] (]) 17:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
	http://www.taiwanthinktank.org/ttt/attachment/article_976_attach4.pdf
			: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 ==
	It is apparent that the blog entry is completely mistaken. The blog entry claims that a Lai Yizhong, a member of a KMT thinktank is contemplating a reunification date of 2012. But a look at the actual document reveals that Lai Yizhong is actually a member of Taiwan Thinktank, a pro-Green thinktank; that Lai is referring to what he believes are CPC plans, not KMT plans; and that the 2012 date offered by him is is based on inferences drawn by him, not on actually released CPC plans.
			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 ==
	In summary, the entire paragraph is unsubstantiated and erroneous, and I am now removing it.
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
			* ]<!-- 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 ==
	-- ] (]) 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
	:Well maybe rather one could fix the paragraph by rewriting a few words, rather than sinking the whole ship? If you feel the need to say "A Pan-Green thinktank", then do so. ATM I am rather busy, otherwise I would have done that already. You can make the decision. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> \| <small>—] ] </small> 04:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2023-03-11T05:53:27.988004 \| ROC Examination Yuan Seal.svg -->
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 05:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

			==Pacific Forum International==
	===British===
			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)
	There is no mention of the British inlvovement here; this article has to change to accomodate this. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:11, 2 September 2009</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

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: