Talk:Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1895)

Invasion

I don't think that it should be called an invasion.--Jerrypp772000 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you invade your own territory? The territorial sovereignty of Taiwan had already been ceded to Japan in the 1895 Treaty. After the treaty came into force on May 8, 1895, Taiwan was Japanese territory. It was no longer Chinese territory. Hmortar (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Then what would you call it? Kc0616 13:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not something along the lines of Pacification of Taiwan, or perhaps merging it with the main Taiwan under Japanese rule article? Shinsengumi 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to rename this article? Serious, I don't really mind if people think the name does not go with the article. Kc0616 16:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to rename it too, but I think it should be renamed because it's not an invasion. It's not because China ceded Taiwan to Japan prior to this event.--Jerry 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have two suggestions. We can adopt an Western style name such as "War of 1895", or a direct translation from the Chinese name "Yiwei War" or "War of Yiwei." Either options would make sense since 乙未 is refering to the year of 1895. It may or may not be an invasion, but is a war. What do you think? Kc0616 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just keep it as it is. War of 1895 would not make sense since there must have been many wars of 1895, the first sino-japanese war being one of them. Secondly, this is an encyclopedia, and we shouldn't make translations ourselves. Yiwei means absolutely nothing in English. Essentially this war was an continuation of the first sino-japanese war and should be treated as such. Blueshirts 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this war is as simple as a continuation of the First Sino-Japanese War, this war was fought AFTER the conclusion of First Sino-Japanese War, and by an armed force that did not participate BEFORE the signing of the treaty against another armed force that participate in both war. Kc0616 11:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "continuation" is not the best word choice here, but the war was a direct result of the first sino-japanese war. Blueshirts 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That I agree. Can someone help me expand this article and any other related articles? Kc0616 13:20, 20 June 2007

List

Can someone sort out a list of battles of significance in chronological order? I'm really having problem with that. Kc0616 08:55, 21 June 2007

References

Possible future references: [1]

Lin Shao-mao

I've just added a reference at the end of the article to the resistance led by Lin Shao-mao, based on an internet biography which I've not got a link to but which can be found easily enough. I hope someone will write an article on him, he deserves one.

Djwilms (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a link to the article in question.

Djwilms (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Tag

This article has been tagged since April 2008 for lacking citations. I have now provided a list of references and have added citations for most paragraphs. I will be adding more over the next few weeks. I have therefore removed the tag, as I believe that the article is now adequately footnoted.

Djwilms (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've done a fair bit of work now on overhauling this article and providing citations for statements of fact, and I'm nearly ready to submit it for upgrading. One thing it needs, though, is more pictures. Does anybody happen to have any stirring Chinese or Japanese action pictures from the campaign? I've had no problem illustrating my Sino-French War articles, but apart from photos of the main actors and that blurry photo of Japanese cavalry entering Taipei I have come across very little for this campaign. Davidson has a few rather boring photos of forts, and some ludicrous Chinese propaganda cartoons showing Liu Yung-fu and his braves slaughtering the Japanese dwarves, and I might have to resort to them if I can't find anything better. Any suggestions gratefully received.

Djwilms (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help you. But thanks for all the effort you've put into this article. Way to go man! 02:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename the article title

The current use of word "invasion" is inconsistent with policy WP:NPOV. I suggest renaming the title as one of the following, and the year can be omitted.

• Japanese subduing of Taiwan
• Japanese conquest of Taiwan

--Matt Smith (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If no one has different opinions, I will go ahead and perform the redirection tomorrow. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Smith "Japanese subduing of Taiwan" doesn't seem NPOV to me. "Japanese conquest of Taiwan" or "Japanese invasion of Taiwan" both seem OK. We do have article with invasions such as Mongol invasions of Japan and Bay of Pigs Invasion. Whether "conquest" fits here is doubtful - this article is about the invasion itself. I guess you could post a link at WT:MILHIST and ask for opinions. Personally I think the title is fine. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The war was about the Japanese government putting down a rebellion on its own territory Taiwan. Therefore isn't it weird to use the word "invasion"? --Matt Smith (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The "own territory" is disputed. Qing ceded Taiwan to the Japanese (without consulting the people). The people declared independence and created the Republic of Formosa. Technically Japan invaded the Republic of Formosa here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was "disputed" unless reliable sources say so. Wouldn't it be more consistent with the international law to say that, after the treaty came into effect, Taiwan technically became a Japanese territory, and the Republic of Formosa was a rebellious regime on the Japanese territory? --Matt Smith (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it was still an invasion because Japan did not have de facto control over the Taiwan. It had no troops to enforce its rule. In the meantime a rebel republic was established. If I go by what is written at List of invasions, An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity. I guess this falls under an invasion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Although there is still room for discussion on that topic, I think we can go ahead and redirect the article to "Japanese conquest of Taiwan" because we both can agree with that phrasing. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see a need to change the title at all and the current title seems fine to me. As I said, the article is more about the invasion. I guess WT:MILHIST can provide more opinions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe WT:LAW could provide more accurate opinions since ownership issue is a legal issue. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Frankly I do not see what is wrong with the term invasion. Taiwan was an independent, unrecognized state at the time of the war. I am against renaming the article.--Catlemur (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I hope you could look up information from reliable sources first. It is more far-fetched to call the Republic of Formosa a "state". It was eliminated before it started to rule Taiwan, and it didn't even own the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan. Thus I don't think it qualifies for the requirements of statehood, and I haven't seen any reliable source says so. In my opinion, it can only be called a "regime", at best. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• I personally favor invasion. Conquest generally implies (in my mind) that they held onto that land and people began to consider it theirs. Subduing sounds blatantly POV in my opinion, due to the oppressive nature of the Japanese regime of the time, and fascists in general, it could easily be seen as a shot at fascists, and Japan (even modern) in general. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Invasion, too, is blatantly POV because Japan was the lawful owner of Taiwan. And it is illogical to say that the lawful owner of a land enters the land is invasion. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Invasion is not POV, it has been used in article names on numerous occasions. An example of a similar title would be the 2008 invasion of Anjouan. When separatists declared a Comoran island independent and the government had to invade it to take it back. Just like Japan did in the case of Taiwan.--Catlemur (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

As a non-native English speaker, I have been under the impression that English word "invasion" means going into other people's territory forcefully. Have I been under a wrong impression? --Matt Smith (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I just found a more neutral alternative from the article -- "Japanese operations in Taiwan". --Matt Smith (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To sum up, because "invasion" can imply ownership of territory and violates the policy WP:NPOV, I would like to propose that the word be changed to "conquest", as used in the second paragraph of p. 105 of this source. If anyone has different opinions based on policies, please express your opinions. Or I will perform the redirection after several days. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: Nopes, it is fine as it is. See WP:IFITAINTBROKE. It seems there no consensus for any move right now. If you move it against consensus, it can be considered disruptive editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not fine because it violates policy WP:NPOV. If you think it does not violates policy WP:NPOV, please explain. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem here. Other editors don't see a NPOV problem either. Consensus is againt you so, please WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be WP:NPOVN, not WP:DROPTHESTICK, if you ask me. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, if you still feel the title is not NPOV, you can seek help at WP:NPOVN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please participate the discussion further in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wording_issue:_Invasion_vs_Conquest. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the NPOVN discussion is likely to go anywhere - it's for reporting NPOV issues with diffs as evidence, not for editors to reach consensus. It also seems a little premature. Third opinions and asking for help at History and/or Military History noticeboards would be the next step imo.

That said, Wikipedia uses what reliable sources call the subject of an article - what do they call it? If they use various terms, something like intervention may be a option. (Hohum ^@) 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hohum: The initial dispute was between me and another editor. I then posted it to WT:MILHIST which helped to get some more opinions (as you can see above). However, the first editor continues to argue that it is not NPOV, so I asked them to post at NPOVN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know you had posted the question at WT:MILHIST until now. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you could post a notification at the original discussion so that others know you posted the same question at other places. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Although the discussion at WT:MILHIST is still in progress, I would like to propose a more neutral candidate: "Japanese takeover of Taiwan". --Matt Smith (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What do reliable sources tend to call it, per WP:COMMONNAME? We aren't going to get anywhere making it up according to editor preference. (Hohum ^@) 17:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To me it seems like Matt Smith is simply offended by the title. He ignores WP:COMMONNAME and fails to demonstrate any reliable sources that support his opinion.--Catlemur (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What common name? Are you sure that the current title is a common name? I had cited a reliable source above that support the use of "conquest", and it looks like you didn't read the discussion carefully. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What do the various reliable sources call it? Is there one title that is most commonly used in third-party reliable sources? That's what should be used for the title. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt, I said reliable sources. Also, I don't see reference to a reliable source citing "conquest" in this discussion. Since the sources used to create an article tend to refer to their subject somehow, then there usually is a commonname that can be derived from them. (Hohum ^@) 18:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please search for text "as used in the second paragraph of p. 105 of this source" to see my citation above. And here is one more source. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt, the scope of the article and the common terms used to describe that scope, are what helps us in deciding the name. As the scope is specifically the invasion (and not the subsequent rule), the current title is fine. At this point I feel it is a waste of my time for any further discussion. If you still want to ignore consensus, WP:RM#CM is there for you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please prove the current title that you supported is consistent with policy WP:COMMONNAME first without unnecessary talks. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. It doesn't work like that. You want to change the name, you need to being proof and you need to open an RM. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will try to find out the common name. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to point out, decent reliable sources would be ones devoted to, or largely on the subject of the article, by a reliable historian (or similar), less so from passing references like the ones you've mentioned; "Understanding Church Growth" or "Legal Reform in Taiwan under Japanese Colonial Rule". (Hohum ^@) 18:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me. Could you please explain less so from passing references in an easily scrutable way? Thanks. I'm a non-native English speaker so sometimes I'm unable to understand inscrutable English grammars. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

After some searches, I found that the amount of "Japanese invasion of Taiwan" is larger than the amount of "Japanese conquest of Taiwan". However, in this source, which was an exhibition about the event in 1895, I noticed that "Japanese conquest of Taiwan" was used to refer to the outcome and "the invasion of Taiwan" was used to refer to the beginning. So it seems that the outcome is less referred to.

Anyway, I have no objection if the consensus thinks it's fine to use "Japanese invasion of Taiwan", though I personally still think that is as odd as saying "My invasion of my island". --Matt Smith (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)