Talk:Chinese reunification/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Chinese reunification. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Overseas Chinese

Perhaps there should be a comment regarding the viewpoints of overseas Chinese. In general, I believe Overseas Chinese of Hong Kong/Chinese decent support the concept of reunification. What about those in Singapore, Malaysia, etc? I think Overseas Chinese support reunification more so from a cultural perspective rather than a political one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.3.140 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan Annexation

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". --24.193.80.232 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

POV much? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 06:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Done.

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 irredentism 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. Readin (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (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. Readin (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Older discussions

Please explain whether Chinese reunification means:

incorporating Taiwan into Communist China; or,
establishing a new country out of China and Taiwan

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 freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the ability to travel abroad or even emigrate?

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?

--Uncle Ed 14:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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 one country, two systems, 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. --Jiang 21:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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. Redcloud822 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese reunification is often stereotyped as being the ideology of the Mainlander community on Taiwan, although there are many non-Mainlanders who support reunification and many Mainlanders who oppose it. In addition, the parties which do support reunification often command considerable support for reasons that have nothing to do with cross-strait relations. This is doubletalk. Who finances these 'unification' parties? Are there in fact more than one? What are the polls actually telling us? Why would non-Mainlanders want to follow the fate of Hong Kong? Wetman 12:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see your point about doubletalk. The unificationist parties make up the Pan-Blue Coalition.

According to the Taiwan independence 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, One country, two systems has only 10% support with the population, so few unificationists (most notably Li Ao) advocate reuniting with the mainland under that system. Instead, they stress breaking down barriers with the mainland, such as opening the three links and promoting the sovereignty of the Republic of China. For example, in the last elections James Soong 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.

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. --Jiang/talk 05:15, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Motivations and Prospects

Removed:

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.

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.

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 Qing 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 masaacres 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.

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? --Jia ng 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 Kuomintang 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". --Jia ng 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 Chinese Civil War in 1949, as Communist Party failed to control Taiwan due to the interuption of Korean War and the protection of U.S.[1].

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. --Ji ang 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.

Roadrunner 05:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Roadrunner 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. TheAsianGURU 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 "One Country, Two Systems", as has been done for both Hong Kong and Macau. According to the proposal outlined by President Jiang Zemin 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 National Unification Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China 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 Li Ao 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 2000 presidential election, independent candidate James Soong proposed a European Union-style relation with the mainland (this was echoed by Hsu Hsin-liang in 2004) along with a non-agression pact. In the 2004 presidential election, Lien Chan proposed a confederation-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 Chen Shui-bian has refused to acknowledge the One-China Policy, 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. Nobs01 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the correct term would be "annexation", but it is seldom used. --MGS 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.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 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. Lenin13 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. 24.89.245.62 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. LuiKhuntek 02:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

do you even use the word "annexation" for civil war? Akinkhoo 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 Outer Mongolia 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 Yuan Dynasty (although there are differing viewpoints on whether the Yuan was a Chinese dynasty or just another part of the vast Mongol Empire). 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 politically correct 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. Colipon+(T) 08:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability of one statement

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.

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.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 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. Akinkhoo 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.--Jiang 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 ..." ?

Shenme 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.--Hillgentleman 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. --141.213.196.250 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.--Freestyle.king 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. Myopiate 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. Myopiate 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? Akinkhoo 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. Myopiate 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Found it, time magazine

Annette Lu 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 Ming Dynasty. By your logic, Zheng Chenggong/Koxinga, the Kangxi Emperor and Chiang Kai-shek 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. Colipon+(T) 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. Myopiate 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it's a civil war that hasn't finish. The loser (ROC) ran away like a dog with its tail tuck in between its legs. The victor should be able to lay claim on what they want, ie Taiwan. The island should belong to PRC, but the islanders should be allow to live the way they want as long as they do not seek independence, take this as a goodwill gesture from mainlanders. No foreign country should ever intervene in someone else's civil war. --122.107.189.111 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for Chinese and Taiwanese editor to argue over the rights and wrongs of their respective nations/systems of government. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in nationalistic battles. Personal opinions of editors are irrelevant to that pursuit. Fences&Windows 13:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

PRC POV!!!

This article is written completely from the PRC perspective and presents only the Taiwan question. What about Tuva? Outer Mongolia? Northern Burma? 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. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 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, Chinese reunification. The term "Chinese reunification" is the most common term used. RevolverOcelotX

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. 151.205.37.254 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. 151.205.37.254 please gather consensus before changing every instance of "reunification" to "unification" RevolverOcelotX

Anyone can glance at the diffs 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. 151.205.37.254 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--Jiang 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 Chinese unification. 151.205.37.254 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese reunification is by far the most common term used in English. We should use the most common term in Wikipedia and keep it consistent throughout the article. RevolverOcelotX

"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). --Jiang 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain? Is there something you would propose? 151.205.37.254 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--Bonafide.hustla 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. Wikipedia should be a place for educating not propagandizing. Lenin13 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.--Jiang 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.Lenin13 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?--Huaiwei 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.Lenin13 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.--Huaiwei 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. Pipedreambomb 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Size may be appropriate, but the section does fall short of the guidelines Wikipedia:lead section 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." Lenin13 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.Robbak 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 Akinkhoo 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: [2]

The link to tribute is relevant and should not be delinked.
The claim that "independence far exceed the support for (re)-unification" is baseless. See [3] 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 [4]
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?--Jiang 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. --Bonafide.hustla 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. Here 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.--Jiang 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--Jiang 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 [[5]]--Bonafide.hustla 07:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I found none of those terms in your link. Please provide evidence of mainstream usage. --Jiang 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". --24.86.70.170 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.Lenin13 05:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why "unification" should be preserved over "reunification." Wikipedia policy is to use common names. As the section above 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. --Jiang 07:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jiang. Looking at the articles under Reunification, and taking into account that this would not be the first time China is unified, "reunification" is clearly more appropriate. --24.86.70.170 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.--Bonafide.hustla 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.--Jiang 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.--Bonafide.hustla 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.--Jiang 02:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

That source is from independence activists, who clearly have a biased point of view. --216.86.146.46 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.--Jiang 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. Nic tan33 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia

Perhaps we should include a link or something in written form to a new Mongolian movement of "unification with China"? Colipon+(T) 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.gangsta's revert

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. --Ideogram 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

re-unification vs unification

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? Readin (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is reuninfication - it was unified territory prior to 1949. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.3.140 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph suggesting 2012 date

I have removed the paragraph suggesting CPC or KMT plans for reunification in 2012.

The sources offered in the paragraph are as follows:

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.

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

http://www.taiwanthinktank.org/ttt/attachment/article_976_attach4.pdf

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.

In summary, the entire paragraph is unsubstantiated and erroneous, and I am now removing it.

-- ran (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 04:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

British

There is no mention of the British inlvovement here; this article has to change to accomodate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.187.203 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2009

Do you mean regarding Hong Kong? Now that Hong Kong has been returned to Chinese rule, what other role does the UK have to play? Fences&Windows 13:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

missing information

=== People's Republic of China (PRC) ===

The consensus among most citizens of the PRC seems to be one of support for reunification by all means necessary, as much for reasons of national pride as for economic or geopolitical reasons. Therefore, the method by which reunification is achieved - be it peaceful or not - becomes less relevant to the average mainlander.

As for the government of the PRC, on the one hand, most analysts predict Beijing would be willing to go to great lengths to defeat any declaration of Taiwan independence, even if it meant military action. It seems they would be willing to accept some high level of international isolation, perhaps even economic damage, as a consequence, because the issue has long been ingrained into their concept of Chinese nationalism, and into the expectations of their populace. On the other hand, Beijing also understands keenly that a 'peaceful unification' is in its the best interests; that the resulting fallout from any aggressive move to regain Taiwan will be great. Beijing must consider the possibility that an attack against Taiwan might result in military intervention by the United States. As a result, Beijing in the last few years has made many efforts to promote cross-strait economic and cultural exchange, which are welcomed in Taiwan, as evidenced by the election of a new government strongly supportive of increased economic ties with mainland China. Beijing hopes that increased economic and cultural interconnection and interdependency will eventually bring about a natural desire for political integration on the part of the citizens of Taiwan.

The paragraph talks a great deal about the diplomatic aspects and efforts put into by the PRC to reintegrate Taiwan but fails to mention any military efforts. (Military efforts such as building new generation of weapons that could deny US military access into the region). Someone is preventing me from adding the missing information. --122.107.189.111 (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)