iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chinese_unification
Talk:Chinese unification - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Chinese unification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A section on HK and Macau

[edit]

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)[reply]

Why 'reunification'?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's essentially PRC propaganda terminology, so slightly inappropriate for this Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Mongolia

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Name of article --> Unification of China?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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. Mountaincirque 10:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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:

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reunification under ROC

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 April 2018

[edit]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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"?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

mainland China vs China in the lede

[edit]

CA, the MOS is clear here Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, it does reflect what is proposed post-Macao handover. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, I will make that minor change immediately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation

[edit]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Pacific Forum International

[edit]

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: [1], [2], [3]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_unification&oldid=1206665062"