Talk:Taiwan independence movement

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:

• ROC Examination Yuan Seal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Republic of Taiwan article should be separated from the Taiwan independence movement article

The concept of Taiwan independence has narrow and broad concepts, and broad concepts can include ROC independence. The "Republic of Taiwan" article is needed to explain the narrow concept of Taiwan independence. In Chinese Wikipedia, "Taiwan independence movement" and "Republic of Taiwan" are separated into separate articles.

(For information, my username is ProKMT only because I'm interested in mainland China history. I have no direct interests in KMT since 1949 and I'm not a Chinese or Taiwanese people. Therefore, I am neither for nor against Taiwan independence.) ProKMT (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Ensure lede reflects distinction between DPP stance and official ROC position per WP:UNDUE

The lede currently gives undue weight to the DPP admins position. It overlooks that statements made by a DPP president do not constitute the official or constitutional position of the ROC. While it may be ok to note that the DPP disagrees with the “One China” principle, the DPP isn't whole of ROC. So it's just empty words with no real political impact. Any actual change to status would require constitutional amendments, formal renunciation of the One China framework and an official declaration of independence. The lede should better reflect this distinction that DPP rhetoric differs from the ROC's current legal framework, and that a single administration’s position isn't that substantial given that it does not equate to an official change in status at all. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

What I find odd about this article is that it cites in lede the DPP as if its claim that Taiwan is independent makes it true. Academic sources, however, are more precise and counter that lazy notion. Both “Taiwan’s Long (Impossible) Road from a De Facto to a De Jure Country: Is a New Constitution the Answer?” (Columbia Undergraduate Law Review) and “Between De Jure and De Facto Statehood: Revisiting the Status of Taiwan” by David Scott Mathias describe Taiwan as operating as a de facto country but facing barriers to de jure statehood, including constitutional claims over mainland China and diplomatic isolation. As a result of China’s influence and limited international recognition, Taiwan primarily engages in paradiplomatic channels. - So Instead of solely relying on the DPP to categorise the country status, which is not even official and too much a lazy general term, article should use academic sources on lede to describe Taiwan's status. I suggest Oxford Public International Law / Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (author Björn Ahl) to states that - "Taiwan meets the objective criteria for statehood but has not formally claimed de jure statehood due to the risk of PRC military action". JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)