This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (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 22.214.171.124 (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)
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)
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. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)