Talk:Taiwan independence movement/Archive 2

Money/Tax to Beijing
Does Taiwan give any money or tax revenue to Beijing? If not, then it is independent. Does anybody know if Taiwan gives money to Beijing? ie, Western Australia wants independence from Australia because Australia takes too much money from Western Australia. Tri400 (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On a de facto basis, no money is not given to Beijing. Likewise, on a de facto basis, the ROC exists as an independent state. But the controversy, or at least a large part of it, revolves around whether or not Taiwan is or should be part of "China." Ngchen (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose Republic of Taiwan be merged in to this article. "Republic of Taiwan" is only a proposed name and its basically the same concept anyway. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. "Republic of Taiwan" is definitely a subset of and overlaps substantially with "Taiwan independence". "Republic of Taiwan" has very few sources and just having an article at that title is confusing. Quigley (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan adjective issue
The word is "Taiwanese." Here's to hoping someone who actually speaks English sees it that way also. 75.111.41.2 (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan independence> Taiwanese independence
Any reason why this article isn't entitled "Taiwanese independence"? "Taiwan independence" seems a bit clunky to me. LukeSurlt c 14:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The term that is used generally is "Taiwan independence," and unlike other things where the common name may be unneutral, this name does not have such issues. Ngchen (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China Position
The opposition to independence is said to be the PRC position. But surely it is the KMT position as well. Both regard China as a single country, with one part controlled by the Communist Party, the other by the government of the Republic of China. Both regard themselves as legimate, and the other as the rebels.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Rating
The article seems to have been edited to the point where it is no longer a "start" class. Changing this would lead to less misdirection.

--Liryans (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Taiwanese Plains Aborigines against indendence
Taiwanese Plains Aborigines are against Taiwan independence, and are against Hoklo and Hakka claiming aboriginal identity.

http://udini.proquest.com/view/how-han-are-taiwanese-han-genetic-pqid:1668343911/

http://gradworks.umi.com/33/43/3343568.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

有唐山公，無唐山媽

"Have mainland (Tangshan) grandfathers, don't have mainland (tangshan) grandmothers

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false

01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The links do not support the claim that all of the said group hold this view. Kaihsu (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

problematic lead para
The lead paragraph does not define the subject. Instead it explains only one legal theory in this diverse movement. Kaihsu (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Prominent Leaders
Can we add a little more on important historical and current leaders of Taiwanese nationalism? I may have missed it, but i think there is no mention of Peng Ming Min. His autobiography gave me and many other Westerners a better understanding of the Taiwanese independence viewpoint. There are probably a number of other political prisoners for the White Terror days that also deserve mention. No?

There is Category:Taiwan independence activists. An English-language article on Thomas Wen-i Liao is still missing. Kaihsu (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"(as reflected in the concept of One Country on Each Side)"
... and the constitution of the current government of Taiwan. I suggest this edit because I feel this is much more important than the KMT/CCP "92 consensus" - which by the way, even President Tsai formally acknowledged in her first speech as president. 92 consensus is political talk. ROC constitution is the law in Taiwan, every major party agrees to that (otherwise, we would see the DPP voting to kick out Tsai for assuming the official title of ROC president ROC, and her calling Taiwan the ROC in public.) Iangreen (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Taiwan independence movement. 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/20060316065901/http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/hl808.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/hl808.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010517/http://www.wufi.org.tw/taiwan/lthistry.htm to http://www.wufi.org.tw/taiwan/lthistry.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411211642/http://www.stnn.cc:82/hk_taiwan/200804/t20080408_758933.html to http://www.stnn.cc:82/hk_taiwan/200804/t20080408_758933.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 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: no consensus. See no general agreement in this discussion to remove "movement" from this article's title. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may request another move in a few months to attempt to garner consensus for the highest and best title for this page. Happy Hearts Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 00:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan independence movement → Taiwan independence – Taiwan independence movement means doing something to move from the status quo, for example, 1. Create a new state, 2. Renaming ROC, 3. Separate from China. On the other hand, Taiwan independence often mean an ideology that Taiwan should maintain its independence. This meaning is not capture by the original title, while the proposed title can mean all of them. Most importantly, the title Taiwan independence movement strongly suggest that the wrong idea that Taiwan is not independent.Golopotw (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "strongly suggest that the wrong idea that Taiwan is not independent"? Read the Law (zh:wikisource:臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例_(民國104年6月)). The chief goal of Taiwan independence is not creating sovereignty, but change the identity of the Republic, i.e. eliminate the Mainland Area. Those who do not share its goal but argue the Taiwan Area should maintain its "independence" (i.e. not accepting PRC jurisdiction) are called maintaining the status quo (Chinese:维持现状), including parts of DPP and Tsai's campaign promise(whether they are sneakily commiting cultral crimes is not in scope of this). If you refer to "台独" nobody will assume you are maintaining because according to the Article on the Relations of People Across the Strait the relations are not state-to-state relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywwuyi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 January 2018


 * Please refrain from being overtly biased when presenting your arguments for moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywwuyi (talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 January 2018


 * Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) when making your posts on talk pages. Please don't delete the Unsigned template added by other users. --Phonet (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "The chief goal of Taiwan independence is not creating sovereignty" is just a point of view. To some, the chief goal of Taiwan independence is creating sovereignty. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I don't agree that "Taiwan independence movement strongly suggest that the wrong idea that Taiwan is not independent." but the ambiguous concept "Taiwan independence" doesn't seem to refer to a movement. (It rather seems like an idea.) --Phonet (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article is not really about "the ideology that Taiwan should maintain its independence", as illustrated by sentences like Taiwan independence is supported by the Pan-Green Coalition in Taiwan, but opposed by the Pan-Blue Coalition, making the nomination inapplicable. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:43, 29 January 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.

Opinion poll
Please add Opinion poll--Kaiyr (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"Hoklo chauvanism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hoklo chauvanism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Republic of Taiwan citations
Haven't there been multiple cases of people placing a sticker "Republic of Taiwan" over their Republic of China passports? The name "Republic of Taiwan" is certainly one of a variety of proposed names for a potentially independent Taiwanese state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Republic of China claimed area
The figures that I used, in terms of percentages, were sourced from the Qing dynasty's area in 1860. However, the ROC's claimed territory is seemingly a bit smaller than this. It seems that the ROC possibly does not claim Outer Manchuria as its territory, which would change the percentages a bit. Is anyone able to find a reliable source on the exact area of the territories that the ROC claims? Thanks. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Misleading bias in the intro
"The Taiwan independence movement is a political and social movement that aims to establish an officially independent sovereign state and new country on the archipelagic territory of "Formosa and Pescadores""

I find this wording very misleading. Taiwan's position is that they already are independent (they have pretty bullet-proof arguments for their sovereignty to be frank). The wording in this intro seems to be worded with the premise that they are not already independent, and that the independence movement seeks to gain something new. Whereas anyone in the independence movement would tell you it is to protect and codify their independence and regain the eroding international recognition which has been manufactured by the PRC.

May I suggest something like this which is more neutral:

"The Taiwan independence movement is a political and social movement that directly opposes unification of Taiwan (ROC) with the Chinese mainland (PRC) and seeks internationally recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign state"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.136.250.79 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit... though I expect wumao will come in and change it back to those ridiculous weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.136.250.79 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Taiwan's position is that they already are independent" is not true. Different political factions have different opinions toward the status of Taiwan. I had reverted your edit. Please avoid making the edit until we have a consensus at here. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The one thing they can all agree on is that Taiwan already is independent.
 * https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/no-taiwans-president-isnt-pro-independence/
 * The only party that does not hold this view is the CCP in Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.137.175.19 (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess you're not a Taiwanese. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am the person who wrote that sentence (it's been edited since I wrote it, but it's more or less the same as what I originally wrote). My political leaning can be described as "deep green". Rest assured, I'm not a wumao. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rewriting
As per policy WP:Consensus: "If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the issue.", you are obligate to self-revert the article back to what it was and try to obtain a consensus regarding how you want to rewrite at here. I hope you're reasonable and will do that. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The initial reason for rewriting the article introduction was due to the fact that it had been butchered by successive edits over the course of several months. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please self-revert your consensus-less rewriting first. And then we'll talk. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * See my comments in the section below. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you are trying to restore the article to an old version. But the paragraph that says "The relationship between Taiwan and the ROC is unique..." was added by an IP user and is consensus-less, too. Please restore the article to this version. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the article to the most recent edit by an editor other than either you or I. Consensus still needs to be reached. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine. I'll remove that consensus-less paragraph tomorrow. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are no further complaints, will do, will do. But I'll be back. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Framing of Taiwan independence movement in introduction
In my opinion, it is impossible to explain the Taiwan independence movement without also making extensive reference to the conflict between the ROC and the PRC over legitimacy as the government of One China. The majority of foreign readers falsely perceive the Taiwanese independence movement as a movement of secession from the PRC. In reality, it is a movement of secession from or succession over the ROC, a de facto state that governs Taiwan independently from PRC-controlled mainland China. With that being said, the problem with saying "Taiwan independence seeks independence for Taiwan from the ROC" is that the ROC is a de facto state. You have to also indicate the UN member state which lays claim to the ROC, i.e. the PRC, in order to provide a more nuanced perspective on the present political situation in Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this is how come I've had to use so many "weasel words", as another user put it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you (@Math Smith) personally recognise the sovereignty of the ROC, the United Nations and 180 UN member states around the world do not. That is why it is disingenuous to frame the narrative of Taiwan independence as being unrelated to the PRC's territorial claim over Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My opinion about the ROC probably is the same as the 180 UN member states around the world. And I do not frame the narrative of Taiwan independence as being unrelated to the PRC's territorial claim over Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In which case, the lede of the article should read: "Taiwan independence is a movement to secede Taiwan from the People's Republic of China". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But that would inappropriately imply that Taiwan is currently part of the People's Republic of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You literally just said on your user page that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. :/ Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My user page and user talk page do not say anything like that. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

ROC/Taiwan
On 27 December 2020, you changed five ROC/Taiwan wordings, which were composed by Jargo Nautilus and Morrisonjohn022 on 29 September 2020 (the fifth one) and 6 December 2020 (the first four)‎, respectively.

I agree with Jargo Nautilus and Morrisonjohn022's edits. After you changed ROC to Taiwan, the wordings can be confusing because "Taiwan" has more than one meaning, especially when it comes to Taiwan independence movement.

So it looks like we haven't had a consensus on your changing. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Republic of China is Taiwan. WP:EXPLAINLEAD Noting this fact makes the article less confusing for the average reader. Jargo Nautilus reverted your edit with the edit summary "When it comes to Taiwan independence movement, do not mix the notion of "Taiwan" and "ROC". Therefore, the "The Republic of China (ROC), colloquially "Taiwan", occupies the......" part is confusing. Again, discuss before massive rewriting.)" so I'm sure she does not agree with your NPOV edits either. Dosafrog (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that, after I reverted Jargo Nautilus's edit telling him to discuss first with a citation of the policy WP:Consensus, he then rewrote the lede. And his rewrite contains 4 "ROC" wordings. So I would say he partially accepted my suggestion of using "ROC". I will not insist on using his edit as a supporting example.
 * Morrisonjohn022's edit clearly supports the use of "ROC" rather than "Taiwan". Therefore, we still have no consensus on your changing. Please let me know your thought, suggest a better solution, or accept Jargo Nautilus and Morrisonjohn022's edits. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Both are rather confusing as both Taiwan and ROC have multiple meanings in the context of the Taiwan independence movement, you seem to know this about Taiwan but I’m a little confused about how ROC falls into your blind spot. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I had not been aware of or seen people raising such a concern before. Could you please explain the particular problem of usig "ROC" you're worrying about? --Matt Smith (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, people use the abbreviation ROC to mean any of the following concepts which aren’t interchangeable in this context: “Republic of China,” “Republic of China on Taiwan,” "Republic of China, Taiwan,” and “Republic of China (Taiwan)” (there are others but these illustrate the point more than well enough). People will also often just say “Republic of China” when they mean one of the other formulations, you will see the current government doing that a lot. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Personally, I would not consider it an issue, according to my own experience. I have joined the Chinese Wikipedia since 2014 and have done/participated in a large amount of edits/discussions regarding Taiwan/China. During these years, I have also looked up a lot of reliable sources in order to better editing those articles. And I have not seen other people raising such a concern when it comes to Taiwan independence movement.
 * Usually, when people say Taiwan has more than one meaning, they mean Taiwan can refer to an island, a province, or the colloquial name of the ROC. As we can see, those examples of Taiwan are completely different things. But I haven't seen people say the ROC can refer to different things like Taiwan does. At most, it is debatable that whether the ROC has statehood. If it does, then it is a state; if it does not, it might be a government-in-exile or a rump state. But that is not the same case as Taiwan's. And I haven't seen other people using examples like “Republic of China on Taiwan,” "Republic of China, Taiwan,” and “Republic of China (Taiwan)” to concern about the meaning of "ROC" in this context so I would not consider it a problem. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not the debate, you appear to be confused. Even a rump state is a state, do you perhaps mean sovereignty instead of statehood? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, even a rump state has sovereignty. Because there has been debates on whether the ROC is a government-in-exile or a rump state, I mis-categorized the two concepts into similar things too quickly. You're right that a rump state is a state. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if Dosafrog will show up. I'm thinking about restoring Jargo Nautilus and Morrisonjohn022's edits because there has been no consensus on Dosafrog's change to them. Kindly let me know your thought. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We appear to have a nascent consensus to keep Dosafrog’s changes, however the lack of participation by any more than the three of us probably means we should wait. I think the thing we *can* all currently agree on is that whatever we pick we need to be consistent with its use throughout that page. Also I think you need to take another look at their actual edit, in only one case did they change ROC to Taiwan. They mostly seem to have changed Republic of China to Republic of China (Taiwan) which is the current government’s preferred formulation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you explain where that nascent consensus is? I have been in disagreement with Dosafrog's change and considering the other two editors' edits less confusing. Morrisonjohn022's edit changed 2 "Taiwan" and 1 "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "ROC". --Matt Smith (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nascent consensus is to keep Dosafrog’s changes. Neither of those editors have participated in this discussion, which is regrettable but understandable. I’ve certainly seen talk page discussions that included you before and just kept walking because in general interacting with you takes more time than its worth (as has been demonstrated here in spades, this will be my last comment unless new editors get involved). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I suggest that you be responsible for your claims rather than walking away. Firstly, you claimed that using "ROC" is confusing as well, but such an issue turned out to be non-existent as I pointed it out before. Then, despite my clear disagreement with Dosafrog's change, you claimed there is a "nascent consensus". Thirdly, you misunderstood Morrisonjohn022's edit and reported his change the other way around. After making those dubious claims/misunderstanding, now you are walking way and blaming me. Don't you think you have gone a bit too far? --Matt Smith (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please respond. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Scope
The scope of this movement does include the islands of Penghu. Please revert your removal of the Penghu islands.

I'm providing a second option here, which would rewrite the first sentence as: "The Taiwan independence movement is a political movement seeking the establishment of an independent, sovereign state named "Taiwan" and in opposition to Chinese unification." Note that the Taiwan is not linked. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ok to second except "Republic of Taiwan" Dosafrog (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ? --Matt Smith (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, Penghu is considered part of the Taiwan region (in addition to being part of Taiwan (ROC)). It also seems like another editor agrees with me. So we have consensus. And you have some NPOV issues. The previous revision is better. Dosafrog (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean Penghu is part of "Taiwan Area". The definition of "Taiwan Area" has nothing to do with our discussion. Are you saying that we should also mention Penghu in the first paragraph? If so, you should revert your removal of the Penghu islands, like my suggestion at the top of this discussion.
 * Sorry to say this, but the "another editor" you're referring to appears to not fully understanding Taiwan's history and political issues, according to my discussion with him.
 * I suggest that you avoid simply using "you have some NPOV issues" to accuse any editors without pointing out what NPOV issues your target actually has. Such a careless accusation can be regarded as personal attack, which is prohibited here. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The long-standing wording was sufficient. "Taiwan" implies Penghu as well. You might want to learn a new word called synecdoche.
 * That editor and I both understand Taiwan enough to know that your edits were controversial and went against consensus.
 * I was not accusing you of anything. I was merely pointing out that many other editors disagreed with your behavior and that it is in your best interest to recuse yourself from making such contentious edits to Taiwan-related articles as multiple others have asked for you to do. Dosafrog (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course the unlinked "Taiwan" implies Penghu as well. The problem is that the current linked version not only includes Penghu, but also includes Kinmen and Matsu, which some supporters of Taiwan independence movement advocate to exclude. That's why I proposed an unlinked version above. So it appears to me that you don't actually have enough understanding of Taiwan independence movement.
 * : I here ask that you provide evidence of those "many other editors" who you claimed as disagreeing with my behavior. I also ask that you provide evidence of those "multiple others" who you claimed as asking me to recuse myself from making contentious edits to Taiwan-related articles. Do not use examples back in 2017 as they belong in history and do not automatically apply to my edits these days. If you cannot provide proper evidence, I would regard that you are trying to use spurious exaggerations to rationalize yourself and degrade me, and that such a behavior of yours violates WP:No personal attacks: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." --Matt Smith (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Taiwan independence movement is primarily about the independence of Taiwan.
 * [1 ] Dosafrog (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What else can this movement be primarily about? You have not addressd the "Kinmen and Matsu" issue I mentioned. Please let me know whether you agree with my proposal of using unlinked "Taiwan" or suggest a different wording which does not imply the inclusion of Kinmen and Matsu.
 * Have you actually read through the Conflict of Interest case you linked? It does not support your two questionable claims. Instead, it shows that the case starter did not fully understand the topics of my three Taiwan-related edits which he brought up. Again, please provide proper evidence of the following two claims you made:
 * "many other editors" who you claimed as disagreeing with my behavior. Pictogram voting info.svg Please make clear who they are and which Wikipedia behavioral guidelines I did not conform to.
 * "multiple others" who you claimed as asking me to recuse myself from making contentious edits to Taiwan-related articles. Pictogram voting info.svg Please make clear who they are.
 * If the two claims are pure misunderstandings, I'm willing to accept an apology. Everyone can accidentally misunderstand others, and that's understandable. Moreover, I believe I have not done any disruptive edit recently, and the Conflict of Interest case has been proven to be not one such case. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please respond. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The definition of "Taiwan" can vary, but the most common definition of Taiwan is "the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu", which are territories that are currently united under a single government, the Republic of China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An analogy could be... "China is the homeland of the Chinese people". But the people groups of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet and southwestern China (Yunnan and Guangxi) are not really Chinese, are they? China is a modern empire comprised of multiple adjacent territories united under one government, not unlike Taiwan, whose different regions are somewhat at odds with one another, albeit to a lesser extent. Kinmen and Matsu are very different from Taiwan proper. Penghu is slightly different from Taiwan proper. Regarding the analogy of China, one could instead say that "China proper is the homeland of the Chinese people", and that statement would be more accurate than the other one. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An analogy could be... "China is the homeland of the Chinese people". But the people groups of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet and southwestern China (Yunnan and Guangxi) are not really Chinese, are they? China is a modern empire comprised of multiple adjacent territories united under one government, not unlike Taiwan, whose different regions are somewhat at odds with one another, albeit to a lesser extent. Kinmen and Matsu are very different from Taiwan proper. Penghu is slightly different from Taiwan proper. Regarding the analogy of China, one could instead say that "China proper is the homeland of the Chinese people", and that statement would be more accurate than the other one. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2021 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of Xinjiang Uyghur.png

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Baloch People.svg

First sentence of the article
I disagree with your wording choice. You are focused on the political debate about what Taiwan's legal status is, but the first sentence is discussing what advocates of Taiwanese independence oppose. The wording you chose is:


 * "The Taiwan independence movement is a political movement which advocates the formal declaration of an independent and sovereign Taiwanese state, as opposed to Chinese unification, the de jure definition of 'Two Chinas', or the claimed 'undetermined status of Taiwan'."

Are you saying that Taiwanese independence activists actively oppose the claim of Taiwan having an undetermined status? If so, how come research polls conducted by the ROC government and Taiwanese universities never mention that claim? (see Taiwan independence movement for examples)

I understand your contention with "Two Chinas" being described as the status quo, so I will take a page from the pollsters' books and suggest the following wording:


 * "The Taiwan independence movement is a political movement which advocates the formal declaration of an independent and sovereign Taiwanese state, as opposed to Chinese unification or the status quo in Cross-Strait relations."

I would be surprised if you opposed this wording because it does not make a claim as to what Taiwan's present legal status is. Yue 🌙 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did not realize the original phrasing aims to explain what Taiwanese people oppose. And I think your rephrasing is fine. As to why research polls never mention that claim (undetermined status of Taiwan), it probably is because the ROC government dared not to include the claim in poll options. If more and more Taiwanese people discover that the ROC government's claim of territorial sovereignty over Taiwan is untenable in the light of international law, they would propose to overthrow the ROC government. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2022 (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) 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ROC Executive Yuan Logo.svg
 * ROC Judicial Yuan Logo.svg
 * ROC Legislative Yuan Seal.svg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bandera Front Alliberament Cham.svg