Talk:History of Taiwan/Archive 1

Peaceful Transition of Presidencies? Really?!?

There were large riots led by the KMT both times that former President Chen was elected and it was covered for days on public television. Isn't the claim that it was a peaceful transition then not factually correct? Why do we then propagate this myth when it's not true? --98.14.36.194 (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be worded better, but I believe the intention is to say that the transfer of power did not involve the party doing the transferring being placed under physical threat in order to achieve the transfer. While the public may have expressed anger, the new president didn't gain power by threatening the old president, placing him under arrest, killing his soldiers, etc.. There was an election that both sides agreed to abide by and both sides kept their promise. Readin (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsorted text

I returned the following passage: Despite Taiwan being rumored as the "Island of Dogs", "Island of Women" or any of the other fabled island thought, by Han literati, to lay beyond the seas, Taiwan was officially regarded as "a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization" and did not enter the map of the imperial domain until 1683. It took several more years before the Qing court would recognize Taiwan as part of the Qing realm. - - Prior to the Qing Dynasty, the Middle Kingdom was conceived as a land bound by mountains, rivers and seas. The idea of an island as a part of the Middle Kingdom was unfathomable prior to the Qing forntier expansion effort of the 17th Century. The presence of the Great Walls demonstrate earlier concepts of "China's" borders in relation to the PRC's current holdings and claims.

This is supported by Emma Jinhui Teng in her book Taiwan's Imagined Geography: Chinese Colonial Travel Writing and Pictures, 1683-1895

Your assertion that the terms "Island of Women" and "Island of Dogs" are points of view can be taken as correct as they are the points of view from Chinese Literati of the early Qing period and advisors to the Qing court. It is through these people the Chinese first imagined Taiwan. The Map of the Ming Empire (1491) Unified Map of Chinese and Barbarians (1607), Map of the Four seas (1723-1730) and the travel writings of Yu Yong He, Ji Qiguang, Lan Ding Yuan and Chen Di ALL support the passage in the Taiwan History section. Taiwan was also believed to be the mythical "Isle of Fairies". Emperor Kanxi called Taiwan a "ball of mud" on November 27, 1683 as recorded in the Veritable Records of the Kangxi Emperor. Remember, the dates you give are also POV and roumor. I also implore you to read the Classic of the Mountains and the Seas which tell of Islands/Lands of "Women", "Dogs", "Hairy People" and "Two Bodied People" that lay "beyond the seas" in Taiwan's general direction. The Islands of Fairies were Peng Lai, Fang Zheng and Ying Zhou, inhabitied by immortals. Taiwan is often likened to places like these in the travelogues of the 17th Century as Han literati tried to make sense of the strangeness they saw. Teng, Emma Jinhuang. Taiwan’s Imagined Geography: Chinese Colonial Travel Writing and Pictures, 1683-1895. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 2004. ISBN 0-674-01451-0 Clements, Jonathan. Pirate King: Coxinga and The Fall of the Ming Dynasty. 2004. Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-3269-4 Spence, Jonathan D. 1999, 1990. The Search for Modern China. London; New York W.W. Norton and Co. ISBN 0-393-97351-4 Brown, Melissa J. Is Taiwan Chinese? : The Impact of Culture, Power and Migration on Changing Identities. 2004, University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23182-1 Keliher, Macabe.2003. Out of China or Yu Yonghe’s Tales of Formosa. Taipei, SMC Publishing. ISBN 9570-638-609-8 Ed. Rubinstein, Murray A. 1999. Taiwan: A New History. New York, M.E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 1-56324-816-6 Shepherd, John R. 1993. Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600-1800. California, Leland Stanford University Press. Reprinted 1995, SMC Publishing, Taipei. ISBN 957-638-311-0 Harrell, Stevan ed. 1995. Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers. University of Washington Press, USA. ISBN 0-295-97528-8 The burdon is on you to remove it for a good reason.

First comment

Isn't Kuomin-tang better than KMT (assuming that's what it stands for)? -- User:Jheijmans

Japanese Rule is Good

This implies that China was more than happy to give Taiwan away and many Taiwanese believed Japanese rule was good because it led to a "Golden age" in the island. Any comments?

yeah,at least Japanese rule is Good than KMT do on Taiwan... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.77.224.138 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

218.170.X.XXX - Please keep whatever you add in accordance to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The language you use anti-KMT and you call the Taiwanese an "ethnic" group. Please back up your assertions with reputable sources. Your info about the Cairo Declaration will not stay unless you prove that it really did not hand Taiwan back to China. The information I know and have available to me seems to suggest otherwise. Also, it is difficult to prove that Chiang Ching-kuo was "reluctant" to institute reforms. It is better to leave that out how he felt, which is unprovable. Some of your contributions are too detailed and irrelevant. I will start a separate page for the Kaohsiung Incident. It only deserves some mention here, not a complete explanation. Jiang 22:38 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Or maybe it should be proven that Taiwan was given to China. The documents speak volumes. I included a secment from the Cairo Declaration itself and a summary of the Japanese surrender. The two documents must be viewed in the context of international law, a case I tried to illuminate in brief. I can elaborate on this some more...

• "It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. " [Released w/o Signatures] Please do elaborate on how Taiwan was not legally ceded to the ROC. I will add the info on how it was "an unsigned press release." Article II of the Peace Treaty signed by Japan and the ROC on April 28, 1952: "It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands." [[1]] Jiang

So we can see by the text from the documents there is some disagreement in the facts. "It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914.." Taiwan was not seized since the first world war as it was ceded to Japan following the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 as a condition of peace. "and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." In the frameworks of international law there is a big difference between ceding land by treaty, which receives the strength of a compact between two parties, like selling a house or a car, and claiming territory through military occupation as waas the case with Kuwait in the Gulf or France during WWII. The Cairo Declaration describes Taiwan as having been stolen by Japan, but that was not the case as Taiwan took no part in open hostilities during the first Sino-Japanese War. China accepted the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki as law and even sent representatives (One being future governor Chen Yi) to Taiwan in 1920 to congratulate Japan on 25 years of the colony. The Cairo Declaration was also written in 1943 while Taiwan was still under Japanese control. That fact deminished the weight of the document further, as the war was yet to be won. Japan could have surrendered early or even won the war. The Allies had no legal authority to allocate land not belonging to them or under their immediate control. You would not expect to claim the liabilities of property you have not signed for or paid for. At the time the Cairo Declaration was made, Taiwanese were fighting the Allies in the jungles of Burma and as Kamikaze pilots in the Pacific.

• First, the comment about Taiwan not being ceded after the beginning WW1 is irrelevant because the conjuction "and" is used in the same sentence. Second, the Cairo Declaration is not an official document, just a press release of what the allies discussed at the Cairo Conference and agreed to do after the war was over. The Declaration was simple exaggerating the term "steal," in classifing the entire first Sino-Japanese War as a needless Japanese provocation and the subsequent treaty signed as unfair. Jiang

Regarding the Treaty of Peace at San Francisco: "Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands." Once again this document supercedes all others, as this is when Japan ranounces its claims over territory it had occupied. Keeping in mind Taiwan's prior status as being contractually the property of Japan, Japan gives up Taiwan and quite clearly does not transfer ownership to the R.O.C. How can the R.O.C. claim ownership of Taiwan if it was not directly ceded to the R.O.C.? Taiwan was simply left up in the air. The UN Charter as likely to be invoked to allow a plebcite as was done with Okinawa as the UN clearly canonized the fundamental rights of all people for self determination. The conflict lies in the same document protecting territorial integrity based loosely on the state succession theory. Could you please repair my other link to this site?

• Please note article 4 of the same treaty, which states, "It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war." Therefore, the treaty ceding Taiwan to Japan in the first place was also nulled. Therefore, China no longer on paper had ceded Taiwan.Jiang 02:32 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
• This is total nonsense. The concept of a treaty becoming "null and void" only refers to those portions of the treaty that are still ACTIVE. Hence, any actions which supposedly rendered the 1895 treaty "null and void" as a result of WWII in the Pacific have no effect on the cession of Taiwan to Japan, since that was totally completed in 1895. Hmortar 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the Treaty of Peace at San Francisco which ceded Taiwan and the Penghu Islands specifically, but actually the Treaty of Taipei which was a UN approved follow-up to decide, once and for all, which government was the be recognized officially. At that time it was the ROC. You will recall, no doubt, that the ROC was actually the representative government of China in the UN for some time until people started to discuss adding the PRC, at which time the ROC quit rather than wait to be phased out or insulted further. " for the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores)." A simple lesson in history will reveal that the last claim mainland China had to the island was under the still existing ROC. Since this government never stopped ruling the island, and was legally granted the right to rule it, it stands to reason that this right cannot be stripped simply because of another government on the mainland being recognized. The last time China had Taiwan was under the Manchurian Dynasty, not even Han Chinese rule, and before that it was briefly in the Ming Dynasty hundreds of years before. You may disagree with these facts, or dispute what they indicate, but the real FACT is that others dispute your facts, Jiang, and you can't attempt to dictate that Taiwan is part of China when the general consensus on the island is that it is not. -Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.13.246.53 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the documents do not clarify the situation as Taiwan was not ceded to anyone and the Cairo Declaration little weight -- it was a plan rather than a treaty.

Although this is not an editorial page, my close friend and collegue wrote a letter on the subject of R.O.C. legitamacy on Taiwan. I included his letter and response from the editor to add to clarify the Cairo and SF Treaty debate. I think the SF Treaty should be included to flesh out the situation, which is so often misunderstood. Many people do not understand why there is a problem or if there is a problem at all. The facts of the documents may be seen as offensive by some, it is not a point of view, but rather the sad course of history. (These are not Copyrighted I hope I can use them to explain if not kill it)

History is a Two-way Street

To the editor,

While your Saturday, June 21 editorial ("Standing Firm Against China's Tricks") was commendable in its goal of defending Taiwan's sovereignty, it contained an all-too-common factual error that has historically added confusion to the issue of Taiwan's right to self-determination.

In explaining the history of the Republic of China (R.O.C.), your editorial stated "...the Republic of China (ROC) has ruled Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. The ROC was founded in 1911, long before the PRC was born in 1949, and the ROC government has all along maintained effective rule over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu."

The problem with this claim is that the ROC never in fact exercised control of any kind over Taiwan and Penghu until the Japanese surrendered in 1945, a full 34 years after its founding in 1911. In the eyes of international law, the ROC's claim to Taiwan is therefore no more grounded in reality than the PRC's. Further complicating matters for the ROC and PRC is the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, in which Japan renounced all claims over its former colonies, but never addressed Taiwan's official status as a part of China. As a result any government's legal claim to Taiwan is dubious at best. Simply put, the treaty that officially ended the Japanese empire also killed both Nationalist and Communist China's legal claims to Taiwan.

It is well documented that the KMT government went out of its way to downplay Taiwan's unique past experience as a part of Japan and questions of its own legitimacy on Taiwan as a way to smother debate over the issue of Taiwanese independence at home and abroad. Indeed, this strategy was successful in that the ROC continues to survive today, although in name only. As a result of this effective piece of KMT propaganda, many Taiwanese today continue to point out that the PRC has never had actual control over Taiwan as a way to bolster the ROC's legitimacy.

While commendable in the face of immediate PRC aggression, this flawed argument will ultimately do nothing but harm to Taiwan's long-term goal of international recognition. As long as Taiwan's government continues to add the word "China" to its name, confusion and PRC interference will result. Taiwanese need to realize that self-respect and self-determination ultimately lies in burying the rotting corpse of the ROC while embracing the prospect of a sovereign and independent Taiwan free of historic half-truths and fiction.

J.Wright

I don't usually reply to letter writers but I just wanted to commend you on an excellent contribution. The issue to which you refer -- the ROC's claim, or perhaps lack of it, to Taiwan -- is a constant thorn in my side. I agree with you entirely; the facts are as you state them. My problem is that, as is common with newspapers here in Taiwan, I have little control over the content of the editorials. Most of them are written by locals who, no matter if they are politically a strident green in hue, actually believe all this BS about "retrocession" and even forget that there was ever any Japanese occupation at all. One of the problems here is educating the Taiwanese themselves about the reality of their own history, rather than the distorted KMT version of events dished up for the past half century.

Best wishes,

L E Managing editor

The clincher lies in the fact that the R.O.C. took over direct administrative control of Taiwan following the retreat in 1949. The problem lies in the Taiwanese inability to extend the ROC a mandate to govern. The first mandate was given in 1996 accepting the government, though there is still the issue of state succession and China's claims based on that principle.

Maybe by spelling out the framework of the argument and providing the proper likes we can avoid some bias and allow the principles to speak for themselves...

Regarding the Plains People The Qing authorities adopted the head and corvee taxes on the aborigines, which made the plains aborigines directly responsible for payment to the authorities. To validate their tax policy, Qing officials designated Taiwan?s aborigines based on their ability to pay taxes to the Qing. Those tribes, which submitted to pay taxes were classified as ?Sek Huan?, which literally means ?cooked barbarian?. The tribes, which had not submitted were classifies as ?Se Huan?, or ?raw barbarian?. Later, the two groups were simply distinguished as ?Ping Pu/ Pepo? ( Plains) and ?Gao Shan/Ge Sen? (High Mountain) tribes. The distinction had very little to do with actual similarities or differences as some of the Gao shan tribes lived on the plains as is the case with the Amis tribe. Aborigines as an ethnic group were classically referred to as ?Huan a?, simply meaning ?barbarian?, the same as the classification bestowed on westerners.

Contrary to the popular misconception that the Ping pu tribes, under pressure from Han immigrants, fled to the mountains becoming Gao Shan tribes, the documented facts show that the majority of plains people remained on the plain and are currently residing on their traditional lands. Large areas of the western plain were subject to large land rents ? Huan De Zu? (Barbarian Big Rent), which desisted following the Japanese occupation. The large tracts of deer field, guaranteed by the Qing, was owned by the tribes and their individual members. The tribes would commonly offer Han farmenrs a permanent rent of the top soil, which was called ?two lords to a field? Yi tian liang zu?. Wealthier Han, commonly military leaders, were allowed large rent status of ?government wasteland?. Large rent holders were required to pay taxes of 6-8 shi for every jia . Often the Han and aborigines found creative means to solve their land and tax troubles. The An li tribe in, under the guidance of their official interperator Zhang Da-jing, an ethnic Hakka who had taken seven aborigine brides, the An li tribe transferred ownership of six pieces of land to Han farmers in exchange for the Han?s expertise in building irrigation systems for farming. The plains tribes were often cheated out of land or pressured to sell, some moved, but most remained and changed their names to Chinese names. One account of this ?identity shift? occurs in the area called Rujryck by the Dutch, now part of Taipei city. A document from the seventh year of the Qian long Emperor, and signed by the village heads states, ? We originally had no surnames, please bestow on us the Han surnames, Pan, Chen, Li, Wang, Tan?etc?. Taking a Han name was a necessary step in instilling Confucian values in the aborigines. In the Confucian Qing state, Confucian values were necessary to be recognized as a human ?ren?. A surname would allow the Aborigines to worship their ancestors, pray to gods and conduct in the practices of filial piety. Often, the large groups of immigrant men would unite under a common surname to form a brotherhood. Brotherhoods were used was a form of defence as each sworn brother was bound by an oath of blood to run to the aid of a brother in need. The brotherhood groups would connect their names to a family tree, in essence manufacturing a genealogy based on names rather than blood and taking the place of the kinship organizations commonly found in China. Many plains aborigines joined kinship groups to gain protection from the group as a type of insurance policy and through these groups they took on a Han identity with a Chinese lineage.

The undocumented ?displacement scenario?, which claims Taiwan?s aborigines immigrated to the mountains becoming ?Gao shan zu?, has been exasperated by the migrations of plains tribes during the beginning of the 19th century. The Gao Shan people have been adapted for over one thousand years to high mountain living as projected through their material culture, hunting culture, oral tradition and physical build. The plains subgroups that had resisted becoming farmers like their Han tenants decided to move to areas away from Han interference. In 1804, a group of approximately 1000 plains aborigines moved over the central mountain range to southern Iilan, near present day Luo dong. These groups were mainly drawn from the more disadvantaged families in 30 villages of Changhua and Tanshui counties. A second migration to the Puli basin in 1823 suggests the participants were merely unsettled families and subgroups based on the fact that the migrations resulted in place names in both Iilan and Puli matching the names of their places of origin. By the early 20th century, large tracts were still owned and maintained by the members of the tribes resulting in the Japanese buying up the large pieces for use as airfields, garbage dumps and industrial zones as was the case with the Pan family of Ali Sai She in Tanzi, near Taichung.

How may I document my writing and what is a reputable source? Some of my contributions run a but long as I try to give you a few of the sources. It seems strange to be to be edited for lacking sources and then be replaced by information that lacks reliable sources. I can give you a book list.

• Please add your info to the articles Kaohsiung Incident and Taiwanese aborigine where they belong. Let's keep this article as concise as possible. Please review the NPOV. Calling Chiang Ching-kuo a dictator violates the NPOV policy. I try to verify what you post, but a search for James Soong and GIO censorship failed to turn any result. Maybe you can do better. Also, sign you name with four "~". Jiang 04:05 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

mmmm...Off the top of my head I can remember a nice article by Bo Teddards on the subject. Look for Soong as the GIO director as well. The interne is not a really great tool for this type of thing. I can't think of a better way to describe CCK, how his Marcos described? I'm quite sure Soong called Shih Ming Teh the "King of Bandits" and I have seen the documents on the Kaohsiung Incident on display by the National Archives in which Soong condemned the protestors and vigorously opposed their actions. Look for policy under the GIO during the 1980's and also check dates of censorship along side Soong's tenure as GIO chief. Soong used libel to imprison political advisaries as the rise in that type of crime rose dramatically under Soong. The case in which Chen Shui Bian was sent to jail had to do with accusations of libel for making a claim against Elmer Feng of plagerism, a claim supported by Feng's former professors.

Here's a list of interesting books that can be commonly found on Taiwan: I have not made lists of the volumes of boring dovuments as they are, well, boring.

Formosa Betrayed, by George H Kerr, 1965 Probably the single most important book on Taiwan during the transition between the Japanese colonial rule and the Nationalist Chinese. George Kerr was working for the American Foreign Service at the time and was present in Taiwan for the KMT occupation and resulting aftermath. Kerr is considered to be an expert on Colonial Japan in Taiwan and his work in Formosa Betrayed remains a cornerstone to understanding modern Taiwan. Unfortunately, the English version only made one printing as the KMT bought the English Copyright in 1965 and never let the book resume printing. A full version is available on the internet at: http://formosa.org/~taiwanpg/

Japanese Rule in Formosa, by Yosaburo Takekoshi, 1907 Longmans, Greene and Co., London, New York Bombay and Calcutta With a Forward by Baron Goto Shimpei, the Administrator General of Taiwan, Japanese Rule in Formosa gives a glimpse of the Japanese mindset in the early years of colonization. Not only does Mr. Takekoshi describe Taiwan in detail, but he also exposes the Japanese feeling of vulnerability and pride in constructing a colony in competition with the West.

Thunder Out of China, by Theodore H. White and Annalee Jacoby, 1947 William Sloane Associates, Inc. New York, New York Theodore White was a journalist covering the war in China during the 1940?s and much of his material is based on his first person account of WWII in China. Mr. White chronicles meetings with Chiang Kai Sheck, Mao Ze Dong and other historical figures of the war. Much of Mr. Whites work stands today as source material on this unique period of Chinese history.

The Soong Dynasty, by Sterling Seagrave, 1985 Sidgwick & Jackson, London The Soong Dynasty uses the real life exploits of the Soong family to paint a detailed picture of the rise and fall of the Nationalists in China. This book gives one of the clearest description of the who?s and why?s of this period.

The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society, Edited by Emily Martin Ahern and Hill Gates, 1981, Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University - Stanford University Press The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society is a compilation of dissertation essays from the 1970?s and thus much of the information available to modern scholars was not available during the period much of the research was conducted, still, the book gives valuable insight into the many factors which define Taiwanese society especially on ethnic friction between mainlanders and native Taiwanese.

China?s Island Frontier: Studies in Historical Geography of Taiwan, Edited by Ronald G. Knapp,1980, University Press of Hawaii This is an excellent book describing the immigration of Fujienese to the island of Taiwan in a historical geographic setting. The authors clearly have no political agenda, but their work casts a light on understanding the truth behind the first Chinese inhabitants of Taiwan.

Becoming Japanese, by Leo T.S. Ching,2001, University of California Press The anthropological lingo gets a bit thick, but the author still advances his position on the effect Japanese rule had on the Taiwanese identity. Ching pits the two opposing histories of Shih Ming and Lien ____ against one another to push his argument while dividing the periods of colonial rule into three pieces. Although the Japanese only ruled Taiwan for fifty years, Ching demonstrates how those fifty years totally changed the Taiwanese sense of place in the world.

The Search for Modern China, Jonathan D. Spence, 1999,W.W. Norton Company, NY NY Spence is one of the most renowned and reliable China scholars alive today and his Search for Modern China gives a no nonsense approach to China studies. The chronology of the book helps to establish a sense of place and time and makes for reliable reference while checking facts.

Taiwan Early Inhabitants Footsteps, Hong Ying Shen,1993, This is the most conclusive book regarding the eleven tribes of indigenous currently recognized on Taiwan. An abundance of photographic evidence and description helps to demonstrate how each tribe is unique and how they related to their indigenous and immigrant neighbors.

Half of My Life, Yang Ke Huang, Xie Shui-hong 1997 This book is the result of Yang Ke huang?s efforts to write down the account of Communist revolutionary Hsieh Shui Hong?s life from being sold as a child in Taichung, Taiwan to her organization of an ad hoc local government during the March massacre and rebellion on Taiwan. Unfortunately, only half of her life was recorded to paper.

Taiwan at the End of the 20th Century: the Gains and Losses, Jou-juo Chu, 2001, Tonsan Publications Inc. This small book, only 200 pages, attempts to highlight the direction Taiwanese society is heading and focuses on many of the problems facing Taiwan in the 21st Century

Among The Head-Hunters of Formosa, Janet B. Montgomery McGovern,1922, Small Maynard and company, Boston Although the book was written in 1922, it still captures the feeling of what was then considered ?Wild Formosa.? Janet Montgomery McGovern was an anthropologist who braved the jungles of Taiwan to meet and study the head hunting tribes of the mountains. The Japanese authorities considered her insane and tried to persuade her from her adventure as the jungles of Taiwan were considered no place for a woman. The book actually makes some very insightful connections to modern Taiwan and a respect for the people of the mountains.

Formosa Calling, by Allan J. Shackelton, (1948 re.1999) (Chinese Translation) Taiwan Publishing Company, Monte Vista CA. Shackelton was an Auckland born participant in the UNNRA relief group working in Taiwan following the Japanese surrender. Shackelton?s work is directly from his diary as he travels Taiwan and witnesses the atrocities of the KMT and perceives the sentiments of the Taiwanese people in the face of a new occupying power.

The Yamato Dynasty, by Sterling Seagrave, 1999,Random House, London In this work by Seagrave, he attempts to uncover the political intrigue of the house of Meiji in 19th and 20th Century Japan. The Yamato Dynasty digs into the power behind the Japanese throne during WWII and the post war period.

Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, by Cass R. Sunstein, 1997, Oxford University Press Sunstein is actually professor Karl Llewellen from the University of Chicago?s Law School. Llewellen?s book deconstructs political thought to analyze it from the inside and demonstrate how conflict is solved in politics and law.

The Republic of Taiwan, Zhang Yen Xian, 2000 Wu San press, Taipei The Republic of Taiwan is explained in this book from construction to its collapse.

From Far Formosa, by Geo.L.Mackay, 1896, London George Mackay arrived in Taiwan as a missionary to preach the gospel to the aborigines. He stayed and married an aboriginal woman and continued his work until his death. Mackay gives a unique view of Taiwan from the missionary perspective to give a rich description of the island through foreign eyes.

The Formosa Encounter: Notes on Formosa?s Aboriginal Society: A Selection of Documents from Dutch Archival Sources, 1636-1645 Edited by Leonard Blusse, 2000, Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines. A great archival source regarding the life of Aborigines on Taiwan before the influence of the Chinese.

Pioneering In Formosa: by W.A. Pickering, 1898, Rrprinted by SMC Publishing INC, 1993. A British officer?s account of Taiwan, this is a really great reference book and a darned good tale.

The Making of the Taiwan Relations Act: Twenty Years in Retrospect, by David TaWei Lee, 2000, Oxford University Press, This book chronicles the creation of the Taiwan Relations Act from the very beginning and sheds light on the political deal-making that went on behind the scenes.

The Hunters and Their Tribes: Studies in the History and Culture of the Taiwan Indigenous People. Edited by David Faure, 2001, SMC Publishing, Taipei, with the assistance of the Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines, A compilation of studies of the Aboriginal People of Taiwan.

Spaniards in Taiwan: Vol I and Vol II ?1582-1641, Translated by Jose Eugeno Boraro Mateo, 2001, SMC Publishing, Taipei, This is a collection of Spanish Documents regarding Taiwan. The book is in Spanish with an English translation.

International Law Frameworks, by David J. Bederman, 2001, Foundation Press, New York-New York. A basic outline of international law and its function in world agreements.

Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier1600-1800, by John Robert Shepherd, 1993, Stanford University Press. A detailed account of the development of Taiwan from an aboriginal society to a frontier under Qing authority. This book is exceedingly valuable for its description of Qing statecraft in Taiwan and the use of land tax in ethnic relations.

Formosa Under the Dutch, WM. Campbell, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company Ltd. London 1903, Reprinted by SMC Publishing Inc., 2001, One of the most extensively cited books on the Dutch colony on Taiwan. Campbell uses translations of original Dutch records to illuminate this period of history.

Memories of the Future: National Identity Issues and the Search for a New Taiwan Edited by Stephane Corcuff, M.E. Sharpe, Inc 2002, A list of essays on the development of a Taiwanese identity. This collections offers a fair and intelligent examination into the modern pressures that are forming the Taiwanese identity and the Taiwanese attitudes towards China.

Taiwan in the Twentieth Century: A Retrospective View, Edited by Richard Louis Edmonds and Steven M. Goldstein, Cambridge University Press, 2001, A collection of essays from the China Quarterly Journal dealing with Taiwan?s economy, society and literature.

Tribes of South Taiwan in the 1880?s: Papers by George Taylor, Edited by Glen Dudbridge, Shung Yi Museum of Formosan Aborigines Institute of Taiwan History, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 1999, This book gives a European view of Taiwan before the 20th century. Taylor?s letters are accompanied by letters from Swinhoe, Dodd, Beazeley and Collingwood. Unfortunately, much of what we know about the highland tribes is due to the notes of European explorers like Taylor. The Chinese were not interested in exploring the mountains.

Natives of Formosa: British Reports of the Taiwan Indigenous People, 1650-1950, Edited by Henrietta Harrison, Shung Yi Museum of Formosan Aborigines Institute of Taiwan History, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 2001, This volume contains documents relating to first hand accounts of Taiwanese Aborigines.

Through Formosa An Account of Japan?s Island Colony, by Owen Rutter, T. Fisher Ltd, London 1923, Reprinted by SMC Publishing Inc., 1995,1990, Rutter gives an enjoyable tourist account of his trip through Taiwan under the watchful eye of his Japanese minder. The academic value of this book lies in the Japanese reaction to showing an Englishman around. Most interesting are the sites they chose to show him as selected information to take back to England. It shows Japanese intentions for Taiwan and betrays their inferiority complex in the colonization game.

Taiwan?s Informal Diplomacy and Propaganda, by Gary D. Rawnsley, St. Martin?s Press Inc., New York NY, 2000, A dry but committed look into how the R.O.C. managed its diplomacy during the last half of the 20th century.

Art and Cultural Politics in Post War Taiwan, by Jason C. Kuo, University of Washington Press, 2000, Interesting look at an often forgotten aspect of politics.

You should also add a new book edited by Murray Rubenstein. A History of Taiwan. In Chinese there is also the famous Five (?) Hundred Years of Taiwan History. -- User:Roadrunner

The 400 Years of Taiwan History by Shih Ming is excellent. I saw him not too long ago, he's getting old, but still full of ideas. He is often pitted against Lien Chan's grandfather. I would argue for a longer history, say 6000 years or 10,000 years.

I have a whole list of good books in Chinese too, I'll think about translating the names and posting them, but it might be irrelavant considering this is an English page and I guess we ought to suggest books accessable in English...shucks!

Probably it's best to thing to do is to summarize a lot of the material and put it into the article. There is starting to be a lot of academic material on Taiwan, but very little introductory material for the outside layman on Taiwanese history. There are still a lot of periods where discussing history is still difficult. -- User:Roadrunner

Yeah, It just pecomes polarized due to the unresolved status of Taiwan. What do you think should be added? I'm trying, though not very successfully, to restrain myself from flooding the layman with too much, but it reminds me of a conversation I had with an editor from the BBC, who basically said that they know about the inconstancies between the true, documented status of Taiwan and what the general public knows about Taiwan. He explained that the BBC continues a policy of maintaining the old status quo because, although it is not factual, it would take too long to educate the general public who knows nothing about Taiwan. It seems to me They don't want to ruffle feathers. I wouldn't trust them if you would like to be better informed.

---

Changed "ban in publicly speaking Taiwanese" to restrictions on the use of Taiwanese in the broadcast media. I don't recall Taiwanese ever being banned in general (yes it was banned in schools). -- Roadrunner

"Without regret"?

Taken from #Koxinga and Imperial Chinese Rule:

" As settlement for losing the Sino-Japanese War, Imperial China ceded the entire island of Taiwan to Japan in 1895 without regret. "

I have hidden the words "without regret". It is not neutral, and it is not acceptable in an encyclopedia article about history. — Instantnood 12:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I concede that it's a bit judgemental. However, you do read that in articles from western observers in the News. I have no problem with removing that. Thanks for your comment. :)Mababa 06:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's no problem to keep the words "without regret". But it should not be presented in this way, rather, in the manner like "some historians (?) consider Li Hung Chang's (or Li Hongzhang's) comment revealed that the Qing government ceded it without regret". — Instantnood 19:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Lack of evidence

If anyone can find any credible evidence of Han explorations of Taiwan prior to the 16th century I'd love to see it.

I would also like to explain some changes:

1) I have substituted the word Han for Chinese to more accurately reflect the view of group identity during the period of prior to Japanese colonization. The term "Chinese" reflects a modern notion of belonging to China, a nation state that was conceived in the latter part of the 19th century by Chinese nationalists trying to modernize China in the face of European expansion. The term "Chinese" is a European term for the people who resided along the East Asian coast. There are NO records of Qing subjects feeling a united sense of "oneness" as Chinese and this is illustrated in Taiwan's history, in which feuding was common among Changzhou, Chuanzhou, Hakkas and Aborigines. These people obviously saw each other as "other". The term "Han" more accurately describes the Confucio-cultural structures of society on the Fujian coast in the 17th century.

Curiously, the term "Han" is also suspect for similar reasons. There wasn't very much group identity among Han Chinese in opposition against "non-Han" until the late 19th century. At one level people had extremely local group identities. At the elite level, the concept was between the "civilized" and the "barbarian" and at that level you had a lot of in-group identity. So there was certainly a sense of "oneness," it just didn't correspond to modern notions of the nation-state.

Also, as a general note, one must not confuse feuding with the sense of "other." There are many historical causes where people who have had bitter and violent battles with people who they felt kinship with. At another level, people also get along really well with the "other."

I can fight like crazy with my brother, and at the same time get along really well with Lebanese Arabs.

Issues of group identity are highly complex.

Roadrunner 01:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right that Middle Kingdom People as opposed to Han People didn't have too much meaning back in the day. However, you overlook the important fact that one of the three major groups to colonize Taiwan from China were the Hakka. They penetrated deep into the interior of the island in some instances. Sources will back this up; the one I have in front of me is Meskill's "A Chinese Pioneer Family: The Lins of Wu-feng." Chinese is an artificial designation applied in retrospect, BUT Han (for han ren) is factually incorrect. Sardino 1:44, 20 Dec 2007 (EST)

2) I replaced the term "mainland China" in the Japanese Era section to simply China to reflect the reality that there was no other China at that time in history as Taiwan was a colony of Japan and was not trying to be represented as China.

I have reverted the statement which regard the Chinese discover as fact. Please show us that the Chinese flag was raised in Taiwan during the Three Kingdom expedition if anyone wants to insert that statement, otherwise we can only treat it as a POV, not a fact.Mababa 01:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have general issues with anyone using the term "discover." If anyone can claim to have discovered Taiwan, it was the aboriginals, and maybe not even then. Roadrunner 01:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Need much more justification for this. I haven't noticed a surge in the use of Min-Nan since Chen Shui-Bian's election. There was a huge shift, but most of that happened in the early to mid-1990's. Also, it is believed by whom exactly?

Roadrunner 02:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I feel the paragraph on "'Suspicious' History in Chinese History Records" is written rather badly. Grammar and spelling errors are littered throughout. Moreover, 1. and 2. described which occur before the 12th century are highly disputable claims. Shouldn't these be held off until more concrete evidence surfaces?

The new Taiwanese identity

After the liberal, Taiwanese nationalist Democratic Progressive Party was elected and came to power in 2000, Taiwanese influences that had been dormant under Nationalist rule have become stronger. "Taiwanese" (a language known as Southern Min (闽南话), Amoy (厦语) or Hokkien (福建话)) has been used much more often, and it is believed that in coming years, the influence of Mandarin Chinese will diminish.

Roadrunner 02:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Need to cite the source of the polls, and also need to have more than two points. For example one thing that isn't mentioned is that pretty much all of the polls I've seen indicate that people with "dual identity" has remained steady at around 40% since 1992. The number responding Taiwanese only has gone up and the under responding Chinese only has gone down. There's also the issue of noise. The responses of people to people on the unification-independence-status quo question tends to have a lot of noise in the U versus I.

This also needs to be seen in the context of the 12/2004 elections. Pan-green thought that they could use identity politics to get a majority in the legislature. They were wrong.

Also, this really isn't history....

Roadrunner 02:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While public perception on the cultural identity of Taiwan have shifted away from Han Chinese the specific percentages are very dependent on how polls are worded. Because of this and the propensity of different interest groups to influence polls, actual identification numbers are difficult to ascertain.

Under Chen's presidency there has been a significant shift in public opinion regarding Taiwan's relation to China. In March 2000 a poll showed that 8% of Taiwanese wanted rapid independence from China. By November 2004 that number had jumped to 21%, and another 10% wanted slow independence. The number of people wanting rapid reunification declined to 6% from 9% four years earlier. Likewise, a poll from September 2004 showed for the first time more citizens of Taiwan considered themselves "Taiwanese" (45%) rather than "Taiwanese and Chinese" (41%).

We can's have Taiwan History without 228. 228 is one of the most important events to shape the Taiwanese imagination of their place in Asia and its effects are still being felt today.

Who deleted that... ?

editing problem (grammar)

"Only after Japan renounced signed the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951..." What does "renounced signed" mean...? Ling.Nut 00:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vienna Convention of succession of States

The Vienna Convention came into force around 10 years ago. [2] The sentence removed cited a source claiming that the Vienna Convention had not come into force, which is simply not true. Tonyobrienuk 23:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Japanese invasions"

I find it a bit strange that the section about Japanese involvement in Formosa in the Edo period (1603-1868) and just prior should be labeled "Japanese invasions". Were there a handful of isolated incidents in which independent pirates, privateers, or daimyo (warlords) sought to seize portions of the island? Yes. But was this a focussed, guided invasion of the entire island by a formal Japanese military? No. Read any Japanese history book and you'll see that, prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, Taiwan appears as barely more than a footnote. Hideyoshi sent a samurai to Formosa in the 1580s or 1590s with a letter for their king asking that he submit to Hideyoshi's sovereignty and supremacy. Failing to find a king, or in fact any kind of organized government on the island, the samurai returned home. Is that an "invasion"? LordAmeth 11:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up and Citations

Dear contributors,

I am lookig to spruce up this page in the near future as I complete work on another page. I supplied a lot of the existing text in a flurry of 2003 edits and I would be willing to supply the citations needed to bring this page up to standards. Does anyone have any objections to such a project? Maowang 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I imported another ref. list because there will be quite a bit of overlap and I didn't want to take the time or tedium to remake the list. I will eliminate sources as I don't use them.Maowang 13:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK! After taking an initial look around and adding some citations, I can see this needs a re-write and some things need to be added...others tossed. Any problems with that? Maowang 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on Japanese rule is problematic. It anachronistically applies current Taiwanese independence thinking to conditions in the late nineteenth century. During that time people on Taiwan were very much "Chinese" and viwed themselves as subjects of Qing and things like Taiwanese self-determination did not came into being yet. To imply that they viewed themselves as different from Chinese, especially during the beginning of Japanese rule, and to say that the rebellions were few and were not inspired by nationalism is false. That is adding independence thiking to a time where such feelings is virtually nonexistent, and this is wrong. Blueshirts 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Eeek! Don't slap an NPOV tag on the section! That's like belching at the supper table. Let's just work things out instead...

From all I've read, the aboriginal uprisings were not inspired by nationalism. However, the aborigines most certainly were not the only ones shaking things up..

Blueshirts (where did that username come from, BTW? I like the way it sounds, tho I'm unaware of any implied meaning..), please bring some references to the table here, to buttress your assertions. We can rework things accordingly. :-)

Ling.Nut 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• The problems with the Japanese section are many. I will not dispute that. But I do have sources that explain the anti-Japanese resistence to millinarian beliefs. see: Katz

• Andrew Morris has a very good article about the establishment of the ROT in 1895. Morris' thesis is supported by Liao Ping Hui and Melissa Brown.

• As I start back on this project, I would like to be very careful about providing accurate information. My motivation is for the highest degree of verifiability and accuracy without any political agenda. Taiwan's history has been nationalized by the R.O.C., P.R.C. Chinese nationalists and Taiwanese nationalists and I will be avoiding many of the authors who have a nationalist agenda (I know who they are). I understand the nature of historicization and I realize there may be alternative opinions on how Taiwanese history should read, but I am trying to let the sources do the work. I appreciate your continued interest in this page and your contributions. I hope we can all work together on this to maximize our pool of good sources to bring this page up to standard. We have a long way to go and the major changes are yet to come. Right now I am doing a preliminary assessment before the hard work.

Thanks again!

Maowang 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

what's "millinarian"? Blueshirts 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

whoops! I mean Millenarian (I'm not known for my spelling anymore.) A person who believes in the imminent end of the current world order (usually through a violent reckoning) and a return to a more "pure" exisitence. Only true believers will be saved. Usually millenarian beliefs are associated with times of strife and social upheaval. Christianity is rooted in millenarian beliefs as were many of the White Lotus societies of China. The Taiping Rebellion is a great example.Maowang 04:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blueshirts, when you make changes could you please source your change. It will lead to a more stable page. Thx :-)Maowang 04:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, instead of removing what I just wrote, causing reinsertion after several edits a huge pain in the ass, why not just add a {{cite}} tag so I know where to put the source later? Blueshirts 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...It should be noted that Dr. Zhang has been part of the R.O.C. Prep. Office at Academia Sinica and has formerly been charged with putting together the R.O.C. History textbooks. Some of those books have a reputation for being biased from the Chinese Nationalist POV. This may cause problems in the future.Maowang 05:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The book has tons of stuff on KMT inefficiency and how it lost China and alienated Taiwanese people, so it reads pretty npov to me. It was written from a variety of sources, including how strange the mainlanders seemed to the taiwanese, which is sourced from writings of Peng Ming-min. It's definitely not something published in the old regime or some propaganda stuff that tells a sordid tale about how the taiwanese people were "mis-educated" for fifty years by the japanese. Blueshirts 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems ok to me. I don't know if I met him or not... I will double check some other sources because it doesn't quite jibe with the info I have been read regarding the degree of Chinese Nationalism in early 20th Century Taiwan. I would't characterize it as anything but a minor sub-movement...but that is from my reading. Thanks! For the sources...I apologize for the undo, it looked like you were ignoring the source request, but I see you were adding it later. Sorry about that!

p.s.

You won't see Su Bing (Shih Ming) listed in the source list either. Maowang 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is debatable about the term "China"? It doesn't mean PRC or ROC. It's a cultural region. Every history book is about the history of ancient "China", not history about some "ciivilization/culture/ethnicity/whatever on the asian continent". There's no need to make it more complicated than it is. Blueshirts 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Several changes per Wikipedia naming conventions

1. Chinese =/= Han Chinese, especially in the context of the Qing Dynasty which is Manchu-dominant.
2. Han Chinese, not Han.

The difference is self-evident from these articles. --Sumple (Talk) 13:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also qualified a couple of simplistic grandstanding statements like "Chinese have no concept of islands being in the imperial realm" - patently untrue since the political divisions of China has incorporated coastal islands, e.g. Hainan, since ancient times. Hainan was a county in the Han Dynasty.

I don't understand the thing about the Great Wall and the PRC, nor its relevance here. I've qualified it pending consensus for removal. --Sumple (Talk) 13:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Move and remove

Taiwan was officially regarded by Qing Emperor Kangxi as "a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization" and did not appear on any map of the imperial domain until 1683 (Teng 2004:34–59). The act of presenting a map to the emperor was equal to presenting the lands of the empire. It took several more years before the Qing court would recognize Taiwan as part of the Qing realm. Some scholars content that, prior to the Qing Dynasty, the Middle Kingdom was conceived as a land bound by mountains, rivers and seas. The idea of an island as a part of the Middle Kingdom was unfathomable to the Chinese psyche prior to the Qing frontier expansion effort of the 17th Century (Teng 2004:34–49, 177–179). This view, however, is simplistic and inconsistent with the presence of islands such as Hainan within the imperial realm since antiquity.

Similarly, it is said that presence of the Great Wall demonstrates some earlier concepts of "China's" borders in relation to the PRC's current holdings and claims (Millward 1998:36–38). Given that Taiwan is not related to this northern land border, the relevance of this argument to Taiwan is limited. The "suspicious history" of Taiwan is often cited by Chinese nationalists to support their claim that "Taiwan has belonged to China since antiquity". Supporters of Taiwan Independence do not regard these claims as valid.

Removed the above section from the "Early History" section. The stuff about the Qing emperor and incorporation has been moved to the "Qing Dynasty rule" section, altogether more appropriate. More reliable and accurate source attributed. (Who is this Teng person? She confuses and misattributes some of the most famous quotes about Taiwan.)

Removed the rest of it due to irrelevance. What does the Great Wall have to do with Taiwan? The thing about the Middle Kingdom not having islands is just ludicrous, as I've pointed out. One of the first lessons you learn in history writing is "don't generalise", especially for grandstanding purposes.

The line about "Taiwan Independence not recognising these claims", or "Chinese nationalists" using the history to support their claims" is unsourced, and inaccurate. Removed -- keep to reporting the facts. --Sumple (Talk) 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sumple: See My talk page I am in serious disagreement with your edits and it looks like you are pushing (maybe unintentionally) a nationalist POV. source your edits and changes.Maowang 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything is sourced for a reason. If you want to know about historicizing read Haydon White's The Narrative of the Form. If you want to know about the Qing read Pamela Crossley. I am NOT happy about your edits or comments. :-(Maowang 03:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Middle Kingdom" is anacronistic in context. This was a term created by missionaries around the same time. The idea of "Zhongguo" being a single unified "state" (in the modern sense, on equal parity with other states) did not exist until at least after the Opium Wars. The word "kingdom" implies this. Does the sentence "This view, however, is simplistic and inconsistent with the presence of islands such as Hainan within the imperial realm since antiquity." comes from Teng? --Jiang 04:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I never preferred Middle Kingdom, The concept of "Zhong guo" was "central". The dynasties were colonial in nature and thus an empire. Thus Qing empire might work well. I have quite a few sources on early concepts of "Zhong Guo" and the thninking behind them. This is not "simplistic", but a heavily researched topic. I would suggest reading Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China. By Prasenjit Duara. This book may give some insight into making our contributions less influenced by a nationalistic POV.Maowang 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help at Taiwan Confucian Temple

Hi, the sources state that the Taiwan Confucian Temple was built in 1665, the 19th year of the reign of the Yongli Emperor, in the Southern Ming Dynasty. But the Yongli Emperor didn't reign for 19 years, he only reigned for 15 years, as he was executed in 1662. As Taiwan remained loyal to the Ming even after the Ming had lost power in mainland China, did they keep counting years of the reign of the Yongli Emperor even though he had died? Anybody knowledgeable about this is invited to contribute at Talk:Taiwan Confucian Temple to sort this out. Badagnani (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the Nationalist government relocated to Taiwan with many national treasures including gold reserves and foreign currency reserves.

In addition, the Nationalist government relocated to Taiwan with many national treasures including gold reserves and foreign currency reserves. was added to the article. Why is this relevant to the history of Taiwan? Is there a reliable source that says those reserves were significant enough to play an role in Taiwan's history? I've added a tag to the sentence. Readin (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed because not citation was provided. Readin (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Payuma moon shaped monolith

Cool picture of the moon-shaped monolith. It would be great if someone who knows about it could add more information about it. Does it deserve it's own article? Readin (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Qing denying claim over Taiwan

"After the Yanagihara-Yamen interview, the Japanese said that the Qing government had not opposed Japan's claims to sovereignty over the Ryūkyū Islands, disclaimed any jurisdiction over Aboriginal Taiwanese, and had indeed consented to Japan's expedition to Taiwan; however, these claims were unfounded (Leung 1983:270)."

Unfortunately the referenced paper is not freely available. The abstract supports the contention that the Qing did not relinquish their claim over the Ryukyu Islands. However, the abstract is silent on the Taiwan question. Also, the earlier sentence from same paragraph says

The Qing authorities explained that there were two kinds of aborigines on Taiwan: those governed by the Qing, and those unnaturalized "raw barbarians... beyond the reach of Qing government and customs.

This certainly backs up the Japanese claim that the Qing had disclaimed jurisdiction over some of the aborigines. I suspect that the sentence saying "these claims were unfounded" overstates the problem, however, without access to source materials I can't be sure. Is the person who added these sentences still around and able to shed some light on the situation? Readin (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

228 description

The following block has been deleted for lack of sources. It is important to describe the 228 incident as understanding what happened then has significantly affected Taiwanese history.

For several weeks after the February 28 Incident the rebels held control of much of the island. Feigning negotiation, the Nationalists assembled a large military force (carried on United States naval vessels) that attacked Taiwan, massacring nearly 30,000 Taiwanese and imprisoning thousands of others.

The killings were both random and premeditated as local elites or educated Taiwanese were sought out and disposed of. Many of the Taiwanese who had formed home rule groups under the Japanese were the victims of 2-28. This was followed by the "White Terror" in which many thousands of Taiwanese were imprisoned or executed for their real or perceived opposition to the Kuomintang military regime, leaving many native Taiwanese with a deep-seated bitterness to the mainlanders. Until 1995, the KMT authorities suppressed accounts of this episode in Taiwan history. In 1995 a monument was dedicated to the victims of the "2-28 Incident", and for the first time the ROC President Lee Teng-hui publicly apologized for the Nationalists' brutality.

Can anyone quickly find sources for information about the events of 228? The current description makes it sound like most of the violence was carried out by Taiwanese attacking Chinese. Readin (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a

tag to the section until balance can be restored on the handling of 228.Readin (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit of text to try to balance out the POV. In terms of sources, perhaps someone can take a look at the main 228 incident page to see if they can be found.Ngchen (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding Footnotes

I've decided to change things from Harvard citations to footnotes. The Harvard citations seem to lessen readability to me and since the footnotes are easy to access I don't think there should be any loss of information. I've looked over the talk page and there doesn't seem to be anyone disliking footnotes and footnotes seem to be the more popular way to go nowadays (I also generally like Chicago-style citations which rely on footnotes for academic papers). So I've decided to go with that whole wikipedia bold policy (WP:BOLD). If anyone has any problems with it, don't bother contacting me, just leave a note on the talk page saying why you want to revert it and then go ahead and revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV "colonized"

Why do we say the Dutch "colonized" while Koxinga "established a base"? Readin (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

有唐山公無唐山媽

What is the literal translation of 唐山 (Tangshan?)? I've seen the saying "有唐山公無唐山媽" translated two ways, one in which "mainland" is used for 唐山, and another in which "Chinese" is use for 唐山. However, based on my limited knowledge of Chinese "mainland" would be the correct translation for "da lu" and "Chinese" would be the correct translation for "Zhongguo" or "Zhonghua". Wikipedia has an article on 唐山 but it's about a city in Northeast China, which would seem to have nothing to do with the topic here. Readin (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tangshan literally means "Tang mountain," but in this case it refers to mainland China, not the city. Taiwanese people who moved to mainland China after Japanese began colonization, and then returned to Taiwan after 1945, are called 半山 (ban shan, "half mountain"). I hope the analogy of mountains helps. Blueshirts (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Actually I knew "山" (shan) means mountain. When I first read the Chinese version of the phrase it confused me because I thought it would mean "mountain people" (the aborigines) but then the translation would make no sense at all. What is the "tang" part? Is there a particular mountain in China that is being referenced? Is there some significant meaning of "tang" that I'm unaware of? Perhaps I'm dim, but the analogy of "mountain" doesn't really help me. What is being equated to a mountain? Is it Taiwan? Is it China? Readin (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tang also means "Chinese", because like Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty was also a golden age. See Tang Chinese. Blueshirts (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tang Dynasty had crossed my mind as a possible source of the term, but since the immigration occurred much later I had discounted that possibility. Thank you for clearing that up.

So if "Tang" is taken to mean "Chinese", and I must admit I'm still not sure what the significance of "mountain" is unless it just means a big place, then it seems that the better translation would be to use "Chinese" rather than "mainland". Readin (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends, but Tangshan in this case means Chinese "mainland" as opposed to Taiwan island. I believe the term 有唐山公無唐山媽 describes the fact that men from the mainland were not allowed to bring their families during early settlement in Taiwan. So there were lots of men from mainland, but not women. I think that's how a portion of people of Taiwan have also aborigine blood in them. Blueshirts (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

At the time, was China thought of as the "mainland"? That seems to be putting a modern spin on the old saying. Readin (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Taiwan in early Qing was was regarded as as an uncivilized frontier, as opposed to China proper. I would suggest not spinning it and complicating the simple definition. Blueshirts (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that calling it "mainland" complicates things. I'll fix it then. Readin (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Formation of island itself

Need information about when the island itself first appeared. Is it volcanic? Badagnani (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Was 228 taboo or forbidden?

Taboo is defined by Wikipedia as "a strong social prohibition (or ban) against words, objects, actions, or discussions that are considered undesirable or offensive by a group, culture, society, or community." Was 228 not discussed because of a social prohibition or a legal prohibition? My understanding is that it wasn't the culture, society, or community that found the topic undesirable or offensive, it was the government. If that is the case, we should change the word "taboo" in the article to "forbidden" or "illegal". Readin (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

POV and quoting problem

I just yanked the following:

'Taiwan played a significant part in the system of Japanese prisoner of war camps that extended across South-East Asia between 1942 and 1945.' Allied POW's, as well as 'women and children as young as seven or eight years old,' were brutally enslaved at various locations like at the copper mine northwest of Kiro (now Keelung), sadistically supervised by Taiwanese and Japanese. '...it was found that, while the Japanese were invariably proud to give their name and rank, Taiwanese soldiers and 'hanchos' invariably concealed their names...some Taiwanese citizens...were willing participants in war crimes of various degrees of infamy...young males were to an extent highly nipponized; in fact a proportion in the 1930s are reported to have been actively hoping for a Japanese victory in China...One of the most tragic events of the whole Pacific war took place in Takao (now Kaohsiung). This was the bombing of the prison ship Enoura Maru in Takao (now Kaohsiung) harbour on January 9th 1945.'

The paragraph seems to be almost entirely quotations from a single source, and the source as well as the wiki editing appear highly biased. If anyone wants to keep it, please clean it up first. Readin (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Dutch colony

Where is the detailed information Dutch colonization of Taiwan. Wasn't they ruled Taiwan before Chinese?--Korsentry 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

they ruled taiwan before them, but the chinese settled, knew about, and explored the outer areas of taiwan before the dutch. stop your POV pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.183 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Settlement fort location near Keelung description mistake?

Paragraph 2 uUnder Dutch and Spanish Settlements section, the fort was described as being "on the northwest coast of Taiwan near Keelung". If "near Keelung" is correct, then it should say "northeast coast". Mistakefinder (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Tapanga

I found this on internet: "Taiwan, originally named "Tapanga" by the aborigines, is an island initially inhabited by nine ethnic groups of aborigines belonging to Malayo-Polynesian system..." (http://cinemaspace.berkeley.edu/Papers/CityOfSadness/behind1.html) Is it true?

and this map from Wiki: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Asia_200bc.jpg Böri (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Asia 200bc

. Tapanga is also seen on the 500 AD map, but on other maps in the series, reads Taiwanese peoples. Hongthay (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Timeline of Taiwan's History

The timeline has an error in that it shows the Ming controlling Taiwan for 21 years. Koxinga may have wanted to be loyal to the Ming, but by the time he took Taiwan he was the leader and the Ming were no longer around. The last Ming emperor had died 18 years earlier. The names need to change. The Kingdom of Tungning should be identified as such. Readin (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiguoren (talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This timeline has an error in that it shows Japanese sovereignty over Taiwan ending in 1945. This is incorrect. Japanese sovereignty over Taiwan only ended with the coming into force of the Peace Treaty of San Francisco on April 28, 1952. Following the surrender and pending a peace settlement, Taiwan remained de jure Japanese territory. General Douglas MacArthur stated at a US congressional hearing in May 1951: "legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan."

Additionally, in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco, there was no designation of the ROC as the recipient of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty (which Japan renounced). Hence, today, what the ROC is currently exercising over Taiwan is a very high degree of "territorial control," but not sovereignty. For more details, see the US State Dept. official "Starr Memorandum" of 1971 http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/starr.htm and a 1959 US court case http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/shengvs.htm Hmortar (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The US State Department can only provide the official US position; to ascribe more weight than that would be to give it undue weight. In addition, said memorandum has not been actively promoted. Finally, the memorandum is a primary source; we need secondary sources to make interpretations of it. And taiwanbasic.com is not a reliable secondary source. It's actually promoting a fringe theory. Ngchen (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore the timeline is a timeline of reality, not a timeline of legal theories. Regardless of who some law claims should have been ruling Taiwan, the ROC was in reality ruling Taiwan. Readin (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources and references w/r/t sovereignty

I made an edit where I tried to remove non-neutral statements about Taiwan being "occupied," the government being "in-exile," and so forth because such views are only one of several perspectives, and therefore should definitely not be presented as "truth." Furthermore, as I have previously pointed out, the site taiwanbasic.com is not a reliable source. Quotes from treaties and such need to abide by the strict guidelines used for assessing the appropriateness of primary sources, and secondary source references are needed to show their notability. Ngchen (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here we go with Ngchen advancing more of his personal propaganda agenda again .....!! Ngchen's criticism of the changes made are invalid on many counts. First of all, no references are/were made to the site taiwanbasic.com per se ..... those are merely a compilation of references from other established and credible sources, none of which amount to "original research" in any way shape or form. These types of "introductory webpages" (posted on whatever website) are necessary because in many cases the original source articles (from law journals, etc.) are not always available on the internet, and when they are, they may be 50 pages or more ...... which is quite unwieldy for the average reader. In summary, the method of "posting" in this fashion is for the convenience of those interested in the subject matter at hand. Hence, the posting guidelines/requirements of Wikipedia were/are not violated in any way.

Ngchen points out: "Quotes from treaties and such need to abide by the strict guidelines used for assessing the appropriateness of primary sources, and secondary source references are needed to show their notability ..... " Exactly. Among the secondary source references are/were TIME magazine, Far Eastern Economic Review, Stanford University, US State Dept., US Congressional Research Service, UK Parliament, UK Foreign Office, Public Braodcasting Service, BBC, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and numerous law journals. Links to the original documents were provided.

Ngchen also points out: "I made an edit where I tried to remove non-neutral statements about Taiwan being 'occupied,' the government being 'in-exile,' and so forth because such views are only one of several perspectives, and therefore should definitely not be presented as 'truth.' " HOWEVER, these views do have the right to be presented, especially when they come from reliable, peer-reviewed, and verifiable sources, as mentioned above. Ngchen's total deletion of any changes to Wikipedia pages with these types of remarks again serves to illustrate that he is dead-set on advancing his own personal agenda of propaganda. Hmortar (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's examine the diff [3].

First, there is the assertion in the old version, without qualifiers that "...the Republic of China, under the Kuomintang (KMT) became the governing polity on Taiwan during the period of military occupation." As was previously pointed out, such is one of several perspectives - FWIW, the Phillips paper (Phillips, Claude (1957). "The International Legal Status of Formosa". Political Research Quarterly (Sage Publications) 10: 276–289. doi:10.1177/106591295701000203.) explicitly argues to the contrary. The first sentences of section 8 (Current State: Martial Law to Pluralistic Democracy) already point out the legal controversy. The controversy that revolved around the government in exile page and the user conduct RFC on another user clearly shows that the ROC should not be described without qualification as a government in exile.

Now as for sources, since taiwanbasic.com is unreliable, I will submit that stuff taken from there that are supposedly quotes from other sources also are suspect. Why not go to the originals? (Some sources can be found at Wikisource.) Going through the source list one-by-one, we will see that some are primary, and some are secondary. Here they are (1) UK Parliament - primary, valid only w/r/t what IT believes, (2) US Congressional Research Service - borderline since it is a scholarly service, although the article was over Sino-Japanese relations, (3) American Journal of International Law - definitely secondary, (4) US Department of State - primary, only authoritative on its own position, (5) Fordham International Law Journal - secondary, (6) US Congressional Research service - secondary (much better than 2), (7) Stanford SPICE - secondary, (8) Starr Memorandum - primary. I have no objection to a bit of further elaboration on this perspective around section 8, but I believe it would unbalance the article to have such in the lead since said perspective is at odds with the de facto situation.

Finishing up, the statement past line 103 "Taiwan and Penghu Islands, as of the moment when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force, had become a limbo cession with its political status undetermined until today." is unsourced. In addition, it makes no sense. If their political status were undetermined, then what determined them today (or later)? Their status is more appropriately listed as "disputed," rather than "undetermined," since the key disputants certainly do not argue that they are "undetermined" for a variety of reasons. Ngchen (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Early History

In the early history section, it mentions how Qing emperor of Kangxi regards Taiwan. Well it seems to a bit violate chronology, as Taiwan was acquired by Qing dynasty far later after the Dutch and Dongning(Koxinga) left. I think putting this section as the present order would mislead and confuse readers unfamiliar with Taiwanese history, and I suggest it to be rearranged in a more systematic, chronological way. Tsungyenlee (converse) 21:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of victims in the 228 incident

hundreds or thousands of people were killed

This seems a bit strange - the 228 incident page talks about "10,000 to 30,000 or more" and gives references for it. So the "hundreds" range in this context would be absurdly low. This article from the Taipei Times talks of tens of thousands. Suggest to switch to the same estimate as on the 228 incident page. Stefanmuc (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Do you really need several pages of references for this article?

Have mercy on the poor citation maintenance worker. I tried to move the references from the soon-to-be-deprecated {{Harvrefcol}} to {{Citation}}, and I mostly succeeded. However, the tools I have don't normally remove blank fields, so I have left behind a large number of extra fields. I can usually handle this by hand in a few minutes. With this article, however, there are far too many for one guy to handle. If one of you all is interested in removing all the extra fields I've inadvertently added, please help me out.

Another option is to remove the majority of these general references all together. Note that, in Wikipedia, references are not used in the same way as with normal academic writing. In academic writing, they provide attribution: they allow the author to acknowledge all the people who contributed in some way to the author's thinking. This is not what we're doing here. Here, in Wikipedia, the references are required for verification: they allow readers and editors to check that the information in Wikipedia can be found in reliable sources. This is different. You only need to include those sources that verify material in the article, and when you include them, you need to connect them directly to the material that they verify. (See WP:INCITE, especially WP:INTEGRITY) A long list of general references (like the one in this article) is useless in Wikipedia. (See WP:CITE#General reference)

Anyway, sorry about the mess. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Chiang Ching-kuo

"He set the stage that led to incredible economic successes of the territories starting in the mid 1980s." That sentence seems a little biased and doesn't have a citation. Should it be removed? Readin (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Section headings

{(small|(moved from user talk:Kanguole)}) What's wrong with repeating the country's name in the page headings, many wikipedia pages of the histories of other countries repeated their headings as well such as Libya and Italy, and mind you I have not edited any of those wikipages. I have actually considered your suggestions, I have even changed a few headings to your desired such as the heading Prehistoric Taiwan to Prehistoric Period and Dutch and SPanish Taiwan to Dutch and SPanish Settlements, in fact I also previously accepted many of your changes to my edits regarding the japanese occupation subheading which I accepted. I hope you would also same as I have, reconsider my suggestions and hopefully accept all if not at least some of them, thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodyducklips (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe these changes are improvements. "Prehistoric rule" is just nonsense. How is "Prehistoric era" better than "Prehistory"? "Settlement" is an incomplete description of the Spanish and (especially) the Dutch. They did settle, but they also set up a government over native people an Han settlers over parts of the island, much as the Wing and Japanese did later. Whatever some other articles may do, MOS:SECTION is clear that section headings should not unnecessarily repeat what is obvious from the title of the article. And that is good advice: because this article is entitled History of Taiwan, it is clumsy to repeat Taiwan in section headings, as we know it is all about Taiwan. Kanguole 13:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding "Colonial" to section headings

(copied from my talk page – Kanguole 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC))

Hello, have you seen the article " original sin on the island paradise? Qing Taiwan's colonial history in comparative perspective"

I think it's a great article, giving insights into how we always conceptualize colonialism as a quintessentially Western practice.

It also discusses in great length about how there's absolute no reason to not characterize Chinese rule as a colonial rule.

In Taiwan, we all too often only regards Japanese rule as a colonial period.

The word choice is paramount in subverting the propaganda the KMT is trying to impose, as well as to reconcile with Aboriginal Taiwanese.

To remove such words would be as damaging as removing such words from, say, Australian history. Hsienlih (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

One could make such an argument, and the text does make clear that the various expansions were at the expense of the indegenous inhabitants. But section headings should not descriptive and neutral, and are not the place for such campaigns. Kanguole 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

May I ask on what grounds do you think adding colonial in the heading renders the description bias? What is your reluctance in establishing them as colonial rules? Obviously Australian history wiki page included such language, so what make Taiwan history so different?

While such a description have not sunk into the the mind of general public due to both KMT/CCP propagandas and the international community regarding colonization as a western practice, however, describing those periods as colonial have been the general consensus among academics.

To describe them otherwise, is to be influenced by political manipulation, and Wikipedia should aim to be as academic as possible. Again, please let me know why you think these alien control in Taiwan differs from other western post colonial countries, when all of these rules consist of racial segregation, cultural assimilation, discriminative laws and practices for the benefits of settlers, and a culturally distinctive Aboriginal population.

Again, since I think the evidence is simply overwhelming, and I cannot find myself in good conscience in not acknowledging these rules as such, I am going to change them back. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsienlih (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether these regimes were colonial or not, but whether this needs to be flagged in every section heading. Adding "Colonial" to all the section headings (with the odd omission of Tungning) is using them to promote a point of view. Kanguole 10:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It was not my intention to leave Tunging out. You still have not answered my question why flagging every section as colonial is promoting a point of view, when it is academically and factually accurate.

Unflagging them is to promote colonial view of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsienlih (talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

As I keep saying, that something is true is not enough reason to put it in section headings. We have another editor who thinks that periods should be classified by whether they were before or after the regime of the Dutch East India Company, and claims that now doing so is ignoring its importance. Maybe someone else wants to mark them by their economic basis, which would also be factually accurate, but similarly extraneous. The section headings are not for promoting a particular way of viewing the history, but are just straight-forward identifications of the various periods. Kanguole 10:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a common practice for historian to mark a period as colonial if it is, no one focuses predominantly on economic differences. It is straight forward as it is, it is not a particular way of viewing history. Look at America, Canada, Australia wikipedia page, they all put European colonization in the "HEADING"!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsienlih (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You wanted to add it to every heading. That's not what's done in History of Canada, etc, and it's not what you'd find in a normal history book. Kanguole 13:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What kind of logic is that? Taiwan has suffered many different colonial power, so ofcouse the word colonial is going to be repeated. History of Canada chose to integrate french and English colonization together, great that is up to them. But because how the Taiwan page is devised, therefore it is needed to add colonial in every period.

I repeat it is normal for historians to clarify a period as colonial- and that can definitely be found in a normal history book. Just because a place have suffered multiple colonial power, it does not 'neutralize' that fact. I am having a hard time to understand your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsienlih (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not complicated. You pointed at History of Canada (among others) – if that page were arranged the way you want this one, it would have sections titled "Canada under French colonial rule", "Canada under British colonial rule", "Colonial/post-colonial independent Canada", etc. But it doesn't, presumably because editors there, while acknowledging that French rule and British rule were colonial, felt that "French rule" and "British Rule" were clear, and redundantly adding "colonial" would be silly. And so it is here.

By all means point at a history book about Taiwan that has the word "colonial" in every chapter title. Kanguole 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at Canada wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada page not the history of Canada.

But by your logic, then the heading pre-history can be changed to pre-colonization, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsienlih (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2017

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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

---

History of Taiwan Island → History of Taiwan – After I reverted this move in a contested area, it was repeated and the redirect edited into a DAB page Kanguole 15:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Kanguole: This move is likely controversial, and History of Taiwan is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2017 (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.

Dutch and Spanish rule

@Zingvin: The argument that that the Dutch and Spanish empires should not be placed in the same section because they were enemies makes no sense in general, but from the point of view of the history of Taiwan, the subject of this article, the two are intertwined. The Dutch arrived first, the Spanish reacted by founding a colony, the two co-existed for a while until the Dutch expelled the Spanish, took over their former possessions and set about subjugating the local people in between to connect the two areas. Any history of Taiwan will treat these together.

The "Spanish Formosa" paragraph, which you appear to have pasted in from the Spanish Formosa article, was mostly about the Portuguese.

I would also add that the lengthy {{see also}} templates are in conflict with usual Wikipedia practice and disrupt the flow of text. Kanguole 10:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, Taiwan's history began with Taiwanese aborigines, not with Chinese people (like South Africa's history began with the Khoisan people, not with European explorers and colonists). And fundamentally, the early modern history of Taiwan began with the Dutch rule (most of neutral historical reference recognize this fact). Before the Dutch arrived, the Chinese did not have enough courage and economic strength to colonize and settle permanently on the island! Rationally, the economic history of Taiwan began with the Dutch rule. Zingvin 07:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the structure of the article? Kanguole 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on History of Taiwan. 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/20140503154631/http://taiwanpedia.culture.tw/en/content?ID=1170 to http://taiwanpedia.culture.tw/en/content?ID=1170
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304064601/http://taiwaninfo.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=17470&ctNode=103&htx_TRCategory=&mp=4 to http://taiwaninfo.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=17470&ctNode=103&htx_TRCategory=&mp=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728144641/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,TWN,,4954ce6323,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,TWN,,4954ce6323,0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722235726/http://www.hrc.ntu.edu.tw/attachments/9709/japan.pdf to http://www.hrc.ntu.edu.tw/attachments/9709/japan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416173855/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2003-07/21/content_539034.htm to http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2003-07/21/content_539034.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418153210/http://http-server.carleton.ca/~bgordon/Rice/papers/App.18ChangKC89.pdf to http://http-server.carleton.ca/~bgordon/Rice/papers/App.18ChangKC89.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015092001/http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/china2.pdf to http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/china2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011533/http://others.apc.gov.tw/popu/9312/aprp5123.htm to http://others.apc.gov.tw/popu/9312/aprp5123.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830083123/http://www.apc.gov.tw/en/statistic/number2.aspx to http://www.apc.gov.tw/en/statistic/number2.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313083812/http://www.roc-taiwan.org.sg/taiwan/5-gp/rights/tr_05.htm to http://www.roc-taiwan.org.sg/taiwan/5-gp/rights/tr_05.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313182115/http://japanfocus.org/products/details/1565 to http://japanfocus.org/products/details/1565
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717202712/http://www.chinataiwan.org/web/webportal/W5042131/Uadmin/A5046382.html to http://www.chinataiwan.org/web/webportal/W5042131/Uadmin/A5046382.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212022327/http://www.tshs.tpc.gov.tw/dutchexhibition/ to http://www.tshs.tpc.gov.tw/dutchexhibition/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 4 November 2017 (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:

• U.S. President Eisenhower visited TAIWAN 美國總統艾森豪於1960年6月訪問臺灣台北時與蔣中正總統-2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)