Talk:Taiwan under Japanese rule

Tone of voice and personal opinions

I believe it is quite questionable to define Taiwan as "colony" of Japan, although this term was so often used unofficially. Imperial Japanese Government declined to use this term several times - ministers formally rejected to use this word in Parliament. This is because: 1. "colony" is not a term to describe legal status. It is a term from economy., 2. They regarded Taiwan as "territory". So Taiwan did not have "Crown Colony" or "Dominion" status to Japan. The point was to what extent the codes of Imperial Japanese Constitution could be enforced.

I had lived in Taiwan for 8 years. Even though I'm not 100% Taiwanese, I'm seriously insulted by this article's tone of voice and the author's personal opinions.

First of all, it is ridiculous to say that the Japanese showcased Taiwan. Who did they showcase Taiwan to? I read the article about Korea under Japanese rule. The only difference I feel about these two is that there is no monarch in Taiwan for the Japanese to murder, because Taiwan was not a country. I don't think that can make Japanese rule in Taiwan better than Korea. That's just someone' personal opinions.

Second, "Use of Japanese language was rewarded" to Taiwan? How gross is that?

Third, "Three Bad Habits" also gradually disappeared in mainland China during the same period. Should the Japanese be credited by such development?

I didn't read the whole article in detail. There may be more inappropriate words and sentences in the article. But I think these things should be set straight.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poloial (talk • contribs).

Keep in mind that this is a translation from the Chinese Wikipedia. Some of the content may have to be re-adjusted.

For the showcase part, I have modified the sentence to this: Taiwan thus served as a showcase for Japan's propaganda on the colonial efforts throughout Asia, as displayed during the 1935 Taiwan Exposition.

For the "Use of Japanese language was rewarded" part, I think you did not read it very well. The Japanese colonial government in Taiwan rewarded the use of Japanese language, it's a historical fact, and the sentence is perfectly fine.

For the "Three Bad Habits" part, the Japanese colonial government did enforce several policies that relates to it. Please read on.

The Chinese government at the time did its own thing (See New Life Movement), and it's completely unrelated. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Development

Working to translate stuff from the zh version. -Loren 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling it a day, will pick up translating the rest in a bit. -Loren 02:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of things to do:

• Find Romanji for the following terms: 公學校, 小學校, 國民學校, 伊澤修二. Done -Loren 07:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Someone who has better art skills then me may want to try duplicating the colonial seal, seen stamped onto on the upper right hand corner of this image. Apparently, the colonial seal resembled the imperial seal with a stylized "台" (two isosceles triangles) superimposed in the center. -Loren 01:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Finished "Culture" section

I finished translating the Culture section..

The article is seemingly complete. Should someone submit it so it can be rated? --AQu01rius 23:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for the help! A few observations and thoughts so far:

• There are a lot of red links, perhaps we could start filling those.
• More references would be nice.

Again, excellent work, and thanks to everyone involved.

-Loren 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Filled in most of the red links. For citations, I will try to find more as I only included what is provided in the Chinese article. --AQu01rius 01:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Chinese article is pretty well referenced, however for the English version I think it might be a good idea to get references in English. -Loren 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you find information about how baseball was brought to Taiwan and about the baseball teams?--Jerrypp772000 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the "baseball" section under the "Culture" section, by the way.--Jerrypp772000 17:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

If Taihoku prefecture included the modern districts of Taipei City, Taipei County, Yilan County, Keelung City the area cannot just have been 428.7 square km. Maybe a digit is missing here. Rolf-Peter Wille 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Details of the bad things as well?

I'm guessing from the softness of this piece that it was written from someone in Japan or perhaps edited by them. I lived in Taiwan as well, and what I picked up from talking to some older Taiwanese people and from newspapers there were quite a few things we would classify now as "war crimes" happening by the hands of the Japanese dictators. Although I was unaware of all of the economic and educational reforms that the Japanese instituted, that doesn't mean all the bad things need to be glossed over or omitted completely, if we go to the Hitler page you aren't going to see "concentration camps" omitted. They made reference to "biological submission" I believe was the term, by that the author means, they raped the aborigines to produce Japanese babies, just like the British did with their "undesirables." I don't think the actual meaning should be so buried, nor should it be blatant, it needs to be objective. This needs to be written at a college level or above, not as a 7th grade social studies report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.255.34 (talk • contribs)

I agree. There needs to be more information written about the peasants, who made up the vast majority of Taiwanese people at the time and surprisingly got little attention in this article. More needs to be written about Japanese agricultural policy that benefited big landowners like the Koo family and screwed over tenant farmers. Also, we need to expand opposition groups that were trying to gain Taiwanese autonomy like the Taiwan Cultural Association and the birthing ground for later Taiwanese self-determination. Blueshirts 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I AM APPALLED THAT THIS HAS NO SECTION SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING THE JAPANESE USE OF COMFORT WOMEN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.113.115.5 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Takasago Hei."

Give English meaning and characters for "Takasago Hei." Jidanni 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese colony?

period between 1895 and 1945 during which Taiwan was a Japanese colony.

What was Taiwan's legal status after 1937? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by legal status, all I know is that Taiwan was still under Japanese administration after 1937. The major thing that changed in 1937 is that the 皇民化政策 started.--Jerrch 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my current browser isn't equipped to read that, and my Chinese and Japanese reading skills aren't that good anyway. What is the "?????"? I thought I remembered reading before that at some point Taiwan was legally considered part of Japan like the home islands.Readin (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

During this period, the Japanese tried to make the Taiwanese Japanese. I don't really know about the legal issue, but the Taiwanese were changed to people of the emperor. They were expected to have Japanese patriotism.--Jerrch 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan was sovereign Japanese territory until April 28, 1952, when Japan's renunciation of its territorial sovereignty became effective. I found a chart which illustrates this -- See Chart #4 on this webpage http://www.taiwanbasic.com/civil/tmodhiae.htm The United States is the principal occupying power, and the ROC is only a subordinate occupying power under USMG. 61.230.92.236 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Japan surrendered all occupied territory onboard the USS Missouri when it surrendered to the Allied Forces.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That was just the surrender of its military forces, not the surrender of its territories. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. The unconditional surrender terms were quite specific. Treaties later signed were just formalities. I see you've been warned several times on your user page about edit-warring and whatnot on this subject - please don't start up here, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.46.2 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan made it clear in 1961 that the Japanese Instrument of Surrender has the nature of armistice and does not have the nature of territory settlement. And the United States Secretary of State said in 1954 that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and Penghu has never been settled in any post-WWII treaties.

This section is just a discussion and no one is doing edit-warring. Mentioning the dated warnings that I received several years ago does not help bolster up your ground here. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Legacy Section

It would be good to include a legacy section talking about the long-term effects of the Japanese rule. Things like the education and infrastructure that helped with later economic growth and changes to Taiwanese culture that survive to today would be useful to know.Readin (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese colonists?

How many were there? How many were deported after the war? How they integrated with the locals, intermarriage, etc? Rocha189.102.98.157 (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased and historically inaccurate

This article is deeply biased and insulting. The article failed to (deliberately?) mention the reality of what it was really like under the brutal Japanese rule, the harsh living condition of most people (the peasants who were living on the brink of starvation), comfort women, forced labour and slave, cultural genocide, the massacre and extermination of Taiwanese aborigines, and Japan's exploitation of Taiwan's natural resources.

To the authors of this article, if you are Taiwanese than ask your grand parents about what that period really was like. Taiwanese were treated no better if not worst than Japan's treatment of Koreans during the same period. This article gives me the impression that it is tring to beautify and justify Japan's rule. To that extent it makes a ridiculous connection between baseball, the very popluar sport now in Taiwan, with Japan's colonial rule. Is this relevant? It sounds like propaganda and populism. I am amazed that article as inaccurate and biased as this is allowed to be on Wikipedia, no one here seems to verify the contents? This is like having an article on Nazi without any mention of genocide on Jewish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.2.51 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding from books is that as their first acquisition outside Japan, the Japanese wanted to use Taiwan as an example of what good rulers they were so that other countries would be more accepting of them. Also my understanding is that Japanese leadership changed between the time Taiwan was acquired and the time other areas were acquired.

As for the grandparents, they say that the Japanese were much better than the Chinese who came later. The Japanese soldiers were bound by laws and were polite.

But the real question for Wikipedia is sources. Comfort women and the attempts at cultural assimilation ("As part of the movement, the Colonial Government began to strongly encourage locals to speak the Japanese language, wear Japanese clothing, live in Japanese-style houses, and convert to Shintoism. In 1940, laws were also passed advocating the adoption of Japanese names.") are mentioned in the article. If you want to point out that peasants were living on the brink of starvation and that genocide was occuring to the aborigines then find some sources that tell us that. It would be interesting to know those things and how they compared to life before the Japanese took over. Readin (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you are coming from a Japanese point of view. There were no merits in show casing Taiwan to the world at that time, that was just a propaganda to the local uneducated mass of Taiwan, indoctrinating them how great Japan's rule was, I doubt Japan cared much about how Koreans felt their rule was in Taiwan when they launched the invasion against Korea. Taiwan was no better treated than Japan's rule of Korea, Philipine ...

"As for the grandparents, they say that the Japanese were much better than the Chinese who came later. The Japanese soldiers were bound by laws and were polite."

Could you please quote me some non-Japanese unbiased sources regarding "The Japanese soldiers were bound by laws and were polite." ??? The stories I have heard were Taiwanese people could randomly be beaten or executed on the street by Japanese soldiers for reasons including not showing enough respect, not bowing to perfect 90 degrees, and to the soldiers liking. This created a sense of low crime rate and good public order as those who didn't obey were tortured, decapitated or hanged. There were many unrecorded instances of lynch, rape, girls forced to become army prostitutes, and large number of nameless mass graves through out Taiwan.

My understanding is that Japan polarized Taiwanese into two social classes. A group of Japanese educated Taiwanese elite that benefitted from Japanese and considered themselves to be sub-Japanese and were very loyal to their masters, lords and the massive majority who were poor, uneducated and often subjected to brutality, labour and discrimination from both Japanese and Taiwanese elites.

This article glorifies Japan's rule of Taiwan, downplays the atrocities and Taiwanese casualities, outlines in a way the accomplishments of this oppressive rule, which is really disturbing to me. The infrastructures in Taiwan built by Japan was for the sole purpose of exploiting much of Taiwan's natural resources, mineral and precious primaeval forests. These resources along with much more pillaged from all over Asia went into Japan's economy and latter supported their Pacific war efforts. Reading this article I also find the tone very dubious.

I am no historian, my sources are what I have heard from people while growing up in Taiwan, thats perhaps why this article is insulting to me. 122.57.53.130 (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Chinese version is a featured article, perhaps we should translate and merge with this article? T-1000 (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please quote me some non-Japanese unbiased sources regarding "The Japanese soldiers were bound by laws and were polite." ??? No, I can't, which is why it isn't mentioned in the article. The stories I have heard were Taiwanese people could randomly be beaten or executed on the street by Japanese soldiers for reasons including not showing enough respect, not bowing to perfect 90 degrees, and to the soldiers liking. If you have some non-Chinese unbiased sources for that we can put it in the article (remember that just as the Japanese had motivation to say good things about their rule, the Chinese who followed had motivation to say bad things about the Japanese - both as a way to claim the Chinese were better and also out of hatred for the Japanese because of what the Japanese had done in China).

This created a sense of low crime rate and good public order... That appears to be one matter on which we've both heard the same story, but we still need a source. Readin (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just want to add some opinions since no one bought it up, from talking to the older folks, some of them who were anti-Japanese Taiwanese peasants and some of them pro-Japanese Taiwanese "elites", it seems quite a few individual members of the Japanese police, military, or para-military had the ability to carry out wanton violence without repercussion, so long as the violence does not draw blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.38.62.88 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Colonial status

Was Taiwan a colony throughout its time under Japanese rule? Was it ever converted into part of Japanese proper? Karota (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Some theorists believe that Taiwan was converted to Japanese proper at some point during early 1945. But, if this is true, then this still wouldn't mean much, since Japan lost control of Taiwan towards the end of 1945, with the conclusion of World War II. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Population

Is there any source for the information to "Population"? Is there a way to access that census data? --147.142.222.129 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Some of the population info in this article seems questionable. In this sentence from the "Aborigines" section, I removed the statements in the parentheses giving percentages: "According to the 1905 census, the aboriginal population included 450,000+ plains aborigines (1.53% of the total Taiwan population), almost completely assimilated into Han Chinese society, and 300,000+ mountain aborigines (1.2% of the total population)." If 450,000 = 1.53%, the total population in 1905 would have been over 29 million, which is well over the population of Taiwan today. The second figure is also impossible, putting the population at over 25 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terriblefish (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Motojiro Akashi (low res).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Motojiro Akashi (low res).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wushe armed resistance

I removed the "...which resulted in the massacre of Atayal tribespeople" from "...with the notable exception of the Wushe Incident in 1930 which resulted in the massacre of Atayal tribespeople" because it was clearly biased favoring one group over the other. The sentence could just as easily and just as accurately read "which resulted from the massacre by Atayal tribespeople" as the initial violent action was the massecre of Japanese women and children at an athletic event. Readin (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox preceding entity - Qing vs. Republic of Formosa

I have restored the previous administration to Republic of Formosa. The infobox parameters simply ask for the previous entity, we are not supposed to decide whether an entity was legitimate or not. Source also show that Japan ultimately defeated the Republic of Formosa and started its rule in Taiwan. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, apparently the editor who changed it is now edit warring to keep it. I will post on WT:MILHIST for opinions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Posted on MILHIST. If we go by {{History of Taiwan}}, it clearly show Republic of Formosa as the preceding entity in the chronological order. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Japan assumed the administration from Qing, not from the Republic of Formosa. The Republic of Formosa has never ruled Taiwan, nor did it ever own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan.

Do not try to label others with "edit warring" when your own acts can also be considered "edit warring".

An entity being listed in {{History of Taiwan}} does not mean it has ever ruled Taiwan. Also, that information can be disputed. Let us discuss this matter at the template's talk page or use the outcome of this discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Republic of Formosa has never ruled Taiwan? Are you kidding me? Please have a look at Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1895). See the result "Result Japanese victory. Extinction of the Republic of Formosa". It is very obvious that the Republic of Formosa existed and ruled Taiwan. Whether is was recognised or not is immaterial. Please show sources saying that the "Republic of Formosa" never existed and that it never ruled Taiwan --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because the polity has ever existed on Taiwan does not mean it has ever ruled Taiwan. I would like to remind you that, I live on Taiwan and probably know more about the history of Taiwan than you do, please trust me. If you want to insist that the polity has ever "ruled" Taiwan, please cite a source. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Smith please desist from personal comments which may be easily interpreted as slurs. PLease comment on content, not editor. Many thanks. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 04:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the remind. I should have added a "probably" so that it does not sound so arbitrary. I had just added the word. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It reads much better, cheers. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because the polity has ever existed on Taiwan does not mean it has ever ruled Taiwan. That's your opinion. Sources in the article clearly show that the Republic of Formosa had soldiers and it actually resisted the invasion, and it was in place for a few months. If you are saying that it did not "rule" Taiwan, then I don't know what to say.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because the polity has ever existed on Taiwan does not mean it has ever ruled Taiwan. conforms well to policy WP:NOR: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources". On the contrary, the claim which asserts that the polity has ever "ruled" Taiwan has gone beyond what is expressed in sources (the polity has ever existed).

"Taiwan under the Republic of Formosa rule" simply does not exist in the history of Taiwan, if you ask any Taiwanese. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Japan took over Taiwan from a previous entity (which in this case was Republic of Formosa). Are you disputing this? Are you saying that Japan did not defeat the Republic of Formosa? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Japan did defeat the Republic of Formosa. But the Republic of Formosa was just a rebellious regime and had never grew into a state, nor did it own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan or rule Taiwan. In that context, I would say that Japan took over Taiwan from Qing. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the previous entity has to "own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan or rule Taiwan". The Republic existed de facto on the Taiwan island, it had troops, and Japan had to defeat it to take control over Taiwan. As long as it is there, it is a valid previous entity. I don't see why we should censor it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement that entities have to be states either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning might sound reasonable. But I also have my reasoning and consideration. Because filling that field with the said regime might mislead readers into believing that Taiwan was previously under the regime's rule, I think it is inappropriate to fill that field with the said regime. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform users about differing viewpoints - and then let them decide for themselves. The relevant field is previous "entity" - and the entity doesn't need to be legally recognized (as long as it can be proven to have existed and was involved in the transition/war, we add it). Remember that what you are thinking as "might mislead users" may not actually do so. Anyway, I will wait for others to comment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I will wait for others' comments then. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to butt into this ancient conversation. But, in fact, there is a simple solution. Just indicate BOTH Qing Taiwan and the Republic of Formosa as predecessors to Japanese Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Same old story with Matt Smith refusing to recognize the existence of the Republic of Formosa, and then claiming that only a legal professionals can close the discussion.--Catlemur (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood something. I have never refused to recognize the existence of the Republic of Formosa. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with LG942 and Catlemur regarding the content. The status quo ante as regarded by the sources is what we have to use. The status of that status quo- whether 'regime', 'government', or 'rebel alliance' is irrelevant. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the situation here is similar to that of the Philippines under the United States, and the infobox used here does include the unrecognized First Philippine Republic as a predecessor. I see no problem with doing the same here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to that infobox's approach of containing both entities (Spanish East Indies and First Philippine Republic)? --Matt Smith (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the fact that it includes the unrecognized state. The situations are not identical - the revolutionary government that became the FPR already existed alongside the Spanish colonial government when the US conquered the colony, the Republic of Formosa did not overlap with the Qing administration. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. I have no objection if the consensus thinks it's fine to include a revolutionary government. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked through quite a bit of sources and I guess this was what happened

• De-jure sovereignty was transferred by the Qing to the Japanese
• The Republic of Formosa set up a parallel rebel regime which ruled Taiwan de-facto (who were ultimately defeated by the Japanese)

Looking at the situation, I think it would be fair to mention both flags. The Japanese legitimately took Taiwan from Qing (so in a way they are the predecessor). But the Republic of Formosa established a rebel parallel government, whom the Japanese had to fight. And this, they were a predecessor as well. Pinging Matt Smith to have a look. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I had no objection to the change, but would like to point out that the Republic of Formosa did not rule Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 — My understanding of the situation is that Japan legally gained sovereignty over Taiwan at the moment that the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed and/or came into force (was ratified). Notably, Japan had already occupied the Pescadores Archipelago, which was part of Taiwan, during the First Sino-Japanese War. When the people of mainland Taiwan found out that the island had been ceded to Japan by the Qing dynasty, some of the now-defunct government officials of Taiwan, generally affiliated with the previous Qing administration in Taiwan, decided to establish a new independent Taiwanese Republic, in an effort to portray the impending Japanese invasion of Taiwan as illegitimate. The new Taiwanese Republic, commonly known as the "Republic of Formosa", was not actually oriented towards Taiwanese independence but was rather oriented towards Chinese unification. The Republic of Formosa tried to collaborate with the Qing dynasty but the Qing dynasty refused to recognise the Republic of Formosa so as to not stir up more conflict with the Empire of Japan (Japan), which had already thrashed the Qing dynasty in the First Sino-Japanese War. Eventually, the Republic of Formosa collapsed due to having virtually no outside support or recognition, and the Empire of Japan swiftly swooped in and annexed Taiwan a few months after the Republic of Formosa was established. So... At the moment that the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed, Japan already had control over the Pescadores Archipelago, which was part of Taiwan, and hence had effective sovereignty over a fragment of Taiwan before the Republic of Formosa was established. Meanwhile, Japan also had nominal sovereignty over the rest of Taiwan (mainland Taiwan) before it even occupied these territories because this was what the Qing dynasty had agreed to by signing the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The Republic of Formosa never controlled the entire island of Taiwan but it had a few "strongholds" within West Taiwan; these could be described as "cliques". They did have military and government... But this was limited to the bounds of these "strongholds". In retrospect, the Republic of Formosa was, essentially, a failed state. In subsequent years, the legacy of the Republic of Formosa was a subject of much ridicule in the Western World... It was probably viewed as another failure of China, not Taiwan... A part of the "sick man of Asia" narrative. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Succession of States

I have just noticed that the page Empire of Japan claims that the Empire of Japan was succeeded only by Occupied Japan and nothing else. I initially believed this to be incorrect, so I had a look at the image being used in the page "Empire of Japan", and it seems that the image considers both Japanese Taiwan and Japanese Korea to have been integral parts of Japan, no different from how East Prussia was part of Nazi Germany before it was split between Poland and the Soviet Union post-World War II, for example. See, I was expecting the article to claim that the Empire of Japan was succeeded by Occupied Japan, Occupied Korea, and Occupied Taiwan, but if the latter two regions were considered parts of Japan at the time, then this means that they were simply parts of Occupied Japan. Obviously, this theory contradicts the Republic of China's belief that Taiwan was "retroceded" to China in 1945. And, in fact, in most articles relating to the Republic of China on Wikipedia, Taiwan is indicated as having been a sovereign territory of China from 1945–1949. So, if Occupied Japan really did include Occupied Taiwan, then doesn't this mean that Japanese Taiwan was actually succeeded by Occupied Japan, rather than by the Republic of China? In this particular article, I have already made a point of indicating Japanese Taiwan's immediate successor post-WWII as "Taiwan under ROC rule". Technically, this is correct, since Taiwan was under ROC rule post-WWII. And, in fact, such a description is probably already contrary to the Republic of China's national agenda, since it believes that Taiwan was immediately retroceded to Chinese sovereignty post-WWII, and hence would rather describe the successor state to Japanese Taiwan as "Republic of China", and would probably oppose any insinuation that Taiwan was being occupied by the Republic of China post-WWII. However, I think the more accurate political status of Taiwan post-WWII was actually "Occupied Japan". So, Japanese Taiwan was preceded by Taiwan, Qing dynasty and the Republic of Formosa, was succeeded by Occupied Japan, with the Republic of China being the primary occupier alongside the United States of America, and was then subsequently succeeded by "Taiwan", a de facto independent state whose sovereignty is heavily disputed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you please list the articles which indicate that Taiwan had been a sovereign territory of China from 1945–1949? That indication is not neutral and should be modified because there are sources holding a different view. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the article Republic of China (1912–1949) indicates Taiwan as the sovereign territory of China in the infobox. There is a map with "territories of the ROC" and regions such as Tibet and Mongolia are indicated in light green whereas Taiwan is indicated in dark green, just like China proper. In my opinion, Taiwan should also be indicated in light green, not dark green, indicating a claim (and occupation) rather than sovereignty... But I don't know how to produce such a map. Furthermore, various ROC-centric and/or KMT-centric articles refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan, Republic of China". I can't specify any at the moment, though. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Surrender Date

The article has two dates of the formal surrender - 14 August 1945 and 25 October 1945. Can someone with more facts at hand please look at this? Ash (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrocession Day

Was Taiwan handed over to the Republic of China or not? That article says that the idea of the "Retrocession Day" is in dispute. Kaizena (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The Allies of World War II decided that Taiwan be placed under the control of the ROC. The ROC claims that Taiwan "retroceded" when it controlled Taiwan; some claims that the control is just a military occupation, responsible to the whole body of the Allies, and is not a cession. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The term "handed over" is ambiguous. It does not specifically indicate that a transfer of sovereignty has taken place. Some "handovers" are permanent, whereas others are temporary. The ROC argues that Taiwan was permanently handed over to the ROC, whereas sources that support the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan argue that Taiwan was only temporarily handed over to the ROC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Truku sources

I found that source labeled under the number 41 taken off Facebook. I don't know if the original editor is here so I didn't want to just take it off without not letting anyone know.

In addition, source 40 seems to be citing from a youtube video of a news report from Taiwan. I have several concerns regarding source 40 since Taiwan media is notoriously known for twisting the words of who they talk to and twisting their words, with me having experience of being on one of the news media and having my words only partially reported. Not saying that this source is bad, but just looking to see if anyone can say that this news source is valid. All other sources seem fine. グレーイト (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"State of Takasago" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect State of Takasago. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 24#State of Takasago until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Konno Yumeto 11:21, 24 September 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:

• Emblem of Taipei City (1920-1981).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Political status during Japanese rule

The recent edits made by me which used "Gaichi" instead of a vague term "colony", as the term was a contemporary legal name for Japanese dependencies under the Meiji constitution. In Japanese-language Wikipedia, it owns a complete topic shown as following link [1]. If there is already a specific and precise term in existence by describing the status of the territory, how come the article has to use a vague term which has no legal ground and also contains equivocality in its meaning? 123.192.219.198 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Gaichi considered to be an offensive term? The distinction between naichi and gaichi was a racial one, no? WP:RS use colony, they don't seem to have legal or equivocality (please explain that one) issues with using it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• Taiwan under Japanese rule → History of Taiwan (1895–1945)
• Taiwan under Qing rule → History of Taiwan (1683–1895)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To be consistent like History of Taiwan (1945–present) and other periods of other countries, do you support or oppose the change? Silence of Lambs (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Consistent with many similar articles regarding historical periods such as Korea under Japanese rule, Manchuria under Qing rule, Xinjiang under Qing rule, etc. --Wengier (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – Using a parenthetical is the last option when disambiguating, not the preferred one. I would genuinely recommend you take a break from move requests until you have a better understanding of WP:NC, as it is a process that requires input and work from other users. Perennial requests like these are potentially disruptive. Remsense诉 17:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The dates are neither arbitrary nor approximate, so better to spell it out. Srnec (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: the imperial rules of Taiwan is the primary subject of both articles, and their covered time periods in general. History of Taiwan (1945–present) covers the general post-1945 history of Taiwan, including the mainland ROC's repossession and rule, its retreat to Taipei, government reforms, economic development, and development of foreign relations. Per Wengier, other similar topics are titled like this. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that it is debatable whether the mainland ROC repossessed Taiwan. Matt Smith (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The legal semantics of it are debatable, but what is indisputable that they did de facto reposses it. Andro611 (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

They have been controlling Taiwan. That's what is indisputable. Matt Smith (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps adding "History of" is an improvement, but would oppose replacing "under X rule" with simple dates, as it is less accessible and recognisable to a reader. CMD (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: This article doesn't seem to be the outlier in terms of naming. Qiushufang (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Less clear than the current version. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.