Talk:Chinese unification - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EnTerbury (talk | contribs) at 17:40, 16 May 2020 (→Interpretation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:40, 16 May 2020 by EnTerbury (talk | contribs) (→Interpretation: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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)

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)

Categories: