Jump to content

Talk:History of Taiwan (1945–present)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Translation

[edit]

Two terms need translation under the "A step towards political party rotation" section.--Jerry 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try but need to confirm with a native Chinese speaker --WilliamDParker 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native Mandarin speaker but I don't know the terms. Also, I think this article should be moved to either the English name of 中華民國領臺時期 or Taiwan Post-War Era. The reason is that I think the current name sounds more like a concept, and not a period of time.--Jerry 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about using 中華民國領臺時期 when I first started the article but had a difficult time translating it (Republic of China Leads Taiwan Era is not good English). Not that it's a great reason, but I went with the current title because it is extant on another article: History of the Republic of China. If I were to extrapolate from the section names in History of Taiwan, I would say Taiwan under the rule of the Republic of China. I guess one's preference depends on one's view of the Political Status of Taiwan. --WilliamDParker 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Move page to "Republic of China based in/on Taiwan", or something else== Quite simply put I think we need to move this page. "Republic of China on Taiwan" sounds like Chinglish. I thought of "Republic of China based in/on Taiwan" - other suggestions would be welcome. John Smith's 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This usage is quite common, I have heard it all my life. A quick Google test shows many uses, including many published books. It's not surprising that it sounds like Chinglish. --Ideogram 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I'm asking why we can't refine it to something that sounds a little more.... polished, as it were. John Smith's 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the best known version of the term. It is the term used by Taiwanese to refer to their own country. --Ideogram 22:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In English or in Chinese? I think it's quite possible to re-translate to something better. John Smith's 14:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English. --Ideogram 16:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the literal translation of what they say in Chinese/Taiwanese/whatever? John Smith's 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. --Ideogram 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the project will have an idea. John Smith's 09:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Taiwan Post-War Era is a pretty common name (臺灣戰後時期) they teach at school.--Jerry 10:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about moving it to "Taiwan Post-war Era"? John Smith's 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China on Taiwan is how I've always heard it.Readin 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for this article? The issues covered are all handled elsewhere in Republic of China for government, Taiwan for non-governmental aspects of the country, and lots of other articles like History of Taiwan. This page seems redundant. Readin 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

[edit]

"He Yingqin, the Chinese representative at that time, received Taiwan on behalf of China " Who did this guy receive Taiwan from? My understanding has been that Taiwan was abandoned by Japan following WWII, and that Japan did not explicitly give Taiwan to anyone. This has been on of the arguments of the TI crowd. Is there a source to cite to say that He Yingqin "recieved Taiwan" and who he received it from? Otherwise a TI person would seem to have could reason to question NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Granted it was just an uncritical translatation of the version of this article on the Chinese wikipedia, but He Yingqin, commander of the armed forces of the Republic of China during Japanese surrender, received all of the Chinese territories occupied by Japan "on behalf of China". It's just not clear that Taiwan was included. According to the discussion at [1], He Yingqin issued a memorandum that expanded the original act of surrender, which excluded Taiwan, to include Taiwan in the areas where Japanese troops were to surrender to China. It doesn't seem to be in the memorandum cited [2], nor can I find it clearly stated in the Chinese Yearbook 1944-1945. Deletion of that section was probably the best choice. WilliamDParker 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to get back to this, but have lacked sufficient time. I went looking for sources to support my edit and found them not as simple as I had hoped. According to the Japanese instrument of surrender to China, which I found, but am lacking time to get back and find again, if I recollect correctly:
  1. Armed forces and troops were surrendered, not land.
  2. Armed forces in Taiwan (and a few other places) were explicitly excluded.
However, the same site I found also provided the text of the order that the Emperor sent out ordering the surrender, and it appears that he intended to include the troops in Taiwan. Unfortunately the difference between the two documents when they refer to which troops should surrender is so small, that it could simply be a translation problem.
Whether General He could unilaterally include more in the surrender that was agreed to by the Japanese is questionable. Whether surrendering troops in an area is the same as surrendering the area is debatable. They may seem like pointless questions, but debates about Taiwan often seem to center around such subtleties.
I still think my edit was an improvement, but it will take me some time to back that up. If you can find the documents in question you might be able to provide some answers, as well as improve the article with additional citations. Otherwise, I'll try to get to it when I have more time.Readin 21:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I think in order to be consistent with the Taiwanese history articles, this page should be moved to Taiwan after World War II.--Jerrch 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You renamed the article after giving only two days of discussion while most people were on winter break? Readin (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being considerate. I think the move was logical, though. It is a descriptive name, it is consistent with other Taiwanese history articles (for example, Taiwan under Japanese rule, Taiwan under European rule), and there's no WP:NPOV issues involved. Feel free to move it back if you think otherwise, though.--Jerrch 16:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the name Post-war Taiwan or Post-World War II Taiwan? 96.229.179.106 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Prose

[edit]

Particularly in the section on Taiwan's International Status and Cross-Straight relations, the organization of this article is very confusing. It seems to jump around in time a whole lot, mentioning events from the 1990s, and then jumping to talk about the 1970s and the like. I'm not an expert on this issue, so I don't feel comfortable doing it myself, but it makes for a fairly confusing read. Also it seems like it might be good to restructure the Cross-Straight Relations section into something more chronologically based, and then have a section that is much more concisely focused on that particular issue, rather than the overall postwar history of Taiwan, as it seems to be now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitneyzac (talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Remove template {{History of China}}

[edit]

This template is off-topic. Even from the viewpoint that Taiwan is part of China, including this template is still far-fetched. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 June 2017

[edit]
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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Taiwan after World War II → History of Taiwan since 1945 – We noticed there's History of Vietnam since 1945 and History of Laos since 1945. Could this page be renamed to keep it consistent? Supreme Dragon (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
What is this argument based on? Neither phrase is anything close to a common name. Whiff of greatness (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was agnostic I until I realized that WWII is a long time ago for a lot of readers. "After WWII", while literally the same as "since 1945", could be construed as "in the aftermath of WWII" or in Taiwan's case 1945–1949. Using "since" is absolutely unambiguous. —  AjaxSmack  21:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ajax. Proposed title is clearer. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
"Taiwan" in this article refers to Taiwan (island) so "Republic of China since 1945" is not an option. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Taiwan since 1945. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

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

Why is the Era infobox removed?

[edit]

Look at the US History articles, they have a proper era articles with eras pertaining to major events. While I may add back the era infobox for now, why can we split the History of post-war Taiwan into two parts: The martial law era (1945-1987) and the democratic era (1987-present). -174.95.137.59 (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles (History of India (1947–present), History of Canada (1982–present), History of Germany (1990–present), History of Poland (1989–present), etc) do not use the era template. Matt Smith (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

However, because Japan had not formally relinquished the sovereignty of Taiwan at that time, Allies of World War II did not recognize the unilateral annexation of Taiwan by the Republic of China. - It is written in the History of Taiwan (1945–present)#Early postwar society article.

This is a pro-independence view, not NPOV. It was decided at the Cairo Conference that Taiwan would be under ROC rule.

Pro-independent views argue that the Cairo Conference has no international legal effect as it is merely a 'declaration'. However, after September 2, 1945, ROC can legally rule Taiwan. We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on '26 July 1945 at Potsdam', and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers. - This is what is written in Japan's surrender document. ROC ruled Taiwan from October 24, 1945.

The Potsdam Declaration includes: That the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine," as had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943

Although the Cairo Conference itself is close to a general declaration without a signature, the Potsdam Declaration, which reaffirmed it, is an officially signed declaration and the Japanese Empire signed a documented surrender document, so the Cairo Conference clause has legal effect. So this is not true: Japan had not formally relinquished the sovereignty of Taiwan

If I'm further in the red for fear of misunderstanding that I support the pro-KMT view of history, I'm a third party South Korean people who has no interest in pan-Blue and pan-Green conflicts. (Many South Koreans disagree with the pro-Japanese historical revisionist views of the far-left Taiwanese independents, who claim that ROC's rule in Taiwan is illegal. Of course, the case of KMT has been too pro-PRC since the 2010s, so the image of KMT in South Korea is worse than that of DPP.) 211.171.189.82 (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article content "However, because Japan had not formally relinquished the sovereignty of Taiwan at that time, Allies of World War II did not recognize the unilateral annexation of Taiwan by the Republic of China." is a fact rather than a POV, according to a reliable source.[1]
  • Pro-independent views argue that the Cairo Conference has no international legal effect as it is merely a 'declaration'. That's also the official position of the U.S.[2] and the U.K.[3]
  • Regarding Japan's official position, they regard the Japanese Instrument of Surrender as only an armistice rather than something that has effect on territorial disposition.[4] They also consider that they relinquished Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco without specifying the receiver of the territory and that the ownership of Taiwan should be determined by the Allied Powers.[5]
--Matt Smith (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the early days of the Chinese civil war, the U.S. and U.K. had little doubt about the ROC's rule in Taiwan (controlled by the KMT). March 1949 was the time when it became very likely that the KMT would lose the Chinese Civil War. During this period, the United States judged that direct U.S. rule or Taiwanese independence was more effective than ROC rule in Taiwan to prevent communism from spreading to Taiwan. The Japanese government has frequently shown a historical revisionist attitude since the Reverse Course.
Few in South Korea question the ROC's rule in Taiwan from 1945 to the present. There is also no historical reason for South Koreans to support pan-Blue or pan-Green. So from a third party point of view, this article seems very biased from a Taiwanese nationalist point of view.
Furthermore, because the Cairo Conference is stated in the Potsdam Declaration + Japan's surrender document and has international legal effect, the wording still violates the NPOV: However, because Japan had not formally relinquished the sovereignty of Taiwan at that time, Allies of World War II did not recognize the unilateral annexation of Taiwan by the Republic of China.
If NPOV is observed, it should be changed as follows: However, with the possibility of KMT's defeat in Chinese Civil War rising, the United States and United Kingdom questioned the unilateral annexation of Taiwan by the Republic of China. 211.171.189.82 (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chiang Kai-shek's rule in Taiwan is also focused on dictatorship and White Terror, and it is close to POV focused on anti-KMT and pro-independence perspectives in that there was little mention of economic growth or anti-communist achievements at the time. While the image of the 21st century KMT in South Korea is bad, anti-communist Chiang Kai-shek's mainstream views are positive. (South Korean leftists remember Chiang as an anti-imperialist and Allied leader, and South Korean conservatives remember him as Taiwan's Park Chung-hee. 211.171.189.82 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. and the U.K. never have any doubt about the ROC's rule in Taiwan because the rule is exactly the Allied Powers' arrangement. But they regard the rule as a military occupation (which is legitimate according to international law) rather than the ROC has territorial sovereignty over Taiwan. In 1946, they had already officially informed the ROC that the transfer of Taiwan's sovereignty remains to be formalized by a treaty.
"the Cairo Conference is stated in the Potsdam Declaration + Japan's surrender document and has international legal effect" is just a POV because there are plenty of opinions stating the otherwise, including the U.S. and the U.K.'s official positions.
As for the case of Chinag Kai-shek, I would say it's just a matter of missing content rather than one of POV/NPOV. NPOV means equally presenting all opinions in due weight on a specific controversial topic, such as the legality of the Cairo Conference press communiqué (commonly referred to as Cairo Declaration). --Matt Smith (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ CIA (1949-03-14). "Probable Developments in Taiwan" (PDF). pp. 1–3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-30. Retrieved 2015-03-08. From the legal standpoint, Taiwan is not part of the Republic of China. Pending a Japanese peace treaty, the island remains occupied territory......neither the US, or any other power, has formally recognized the annexation by China of Taiwan
  2. ^ Monte R. Bullard (2008). Strait Talk: Avoiding a Nuclear War Between the US and China over Taiwan (PDF). Monterey, CA: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS). p. 294. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-04-13. He explained that the U.S. regards the status of the island as unsettled, because in the Cairo and Potsdam declarations of World War 11, the allied powers
    "stated as their purpose that Taiwan should be part of China."
    "This statement of purpose was never formally implemented or executed," he said.
  3. ^ "Far East (Formosa and the Pescadores)", Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 4 May 1955, archived from the original on 2017-10-18, retrieved 2015-12-09, The document in question was the Cairo Declaration. That was couched in the form of a statement of intention, and as it was merely a statement of intention, it is merely binding in so far as it states the intent at that time, and therefore it cannot by itself transfer sovereignty. Undoubtedly that document does impose certain moral obligations on those who take part in it, but it is not really germane to the present legal argument on what is or is not today the present sovereignty over Formosa.
  4. ^ 参議院会議録情報 第038回国会 予算委員会 第15号. March 15, 1961. p. 19. "ポツダム宣言には、カイロ宣言の条項は履行せらるべしということが書いてある。そうしてわれわれは降伏文書によって、ポツダム宣言の受諾を宣言したのであります。しかし、これは降伏文書というものは、休戦協定の性格を有するものでありまして、領土的処理を行ない得ない性質のものであるということを申し上げたのであります。" (Translation: It was specified in Potsdam Proclamation that articles in Cairo Declaration should be carried out, and in accordance with Japanese Instrument of Surrender we announced that we would comply with Potsdam Proclamation. However, the so-called Japanese Instrument of Surrender possesses the nature of armistice and does not possess the nature of territorial disposition.)
  5. ^ 衆議院会議録情報 第162回国会 外務委員会 第7号. May 13, 2005. p. 18. "日本はサンフランシスコ平和条約によって台湾を放棄いたしました……日華平和条約においては同放棄が承認をされた。ただ、その場合、どこの国に対して放棄したかは明記していないわけでございます。したがって、台湾がどこに帰属するかについて、これは専ら連合国が決定すべき問題であり、日本は発言する立場にない、これが日本側の一貫した法的な立場であります。" (Translation: Japan relinquished Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco. The Treaty of Taipei also recognized the relinquishment. But, in that case, there was no specification on which country the relinquishment was made for. Therefore, the ownership of Taiwan is an issue for the Allied Powers to decide and Japan has no right to speak. That has always been Japan's legal position.)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Taiwan_(1945–present)&oldid=1250229307"