Talk:Retrocession of Taiwan

Potential merger or move

This article seems to cover the terminology of “Retrocession,” which is already covered in Retrocession Day. The actual event that these terms describe is covered extensively in Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan, so there is significant overlap. Given “retrocession” is a political and potentially controversial term, it seems to be that the Retreat article should be the main article (to which references in related history sections should link), with some other content migrated to Retrocession Day. I am curious what others think about this proposal.

I understand the Chinese Wikipedia has a 台灣光復 article, but I am not sure there is enough content unique to this concept (besides being one aspect/name of the Retreat) to justify a completely separate article. Anything not explicitly covered there would also be captured in the existing Retrocession Day. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Note:

• This article discusses an event in 1945 resulting from the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945). The Retrocession Day is a day in memory of this event, which is observed annually, since 1946, although no longer a national holiday since 2000.
• The retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan occurred in 1948–1949 as a result of the Chinese Civil War (1945–1949).

I prefer to use the "common name" rather than a "less controversial name," as long as it does not violate any rules. "Being controversial" is often used as a justification for censorship. For example, some pro-CCP writers use terms like "political turmoil in 1989" instead of "Tiananmen Square protests and massacre," because the words "protests" and "massacre" are deemed controversial in their context. Similarly, the term "retrocession" was widely used in 1945 in Taiwan by both Waishengren and Taiwanese. At the time, it was celebrated as the "retrocession" of Taiwan. Although this sentiment later gave way to regret for many, it is important not to deny or erase the history.

Regarding the name "Retrocession of Taiwan," my reasoning is as follows (also noted on your talk page):

First, as a common name, "Retrocession of Taiwan" is not a conspiracy theory, though controversial for many people. "Retrocession" is currently used as part of the article name on both Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia. It is also a common name in many English sources and even used by those who disagree:

• Executive Yuan: ROC to celebrate 70th anniversary of retrocession
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Commemorating the 70th Anniversary of Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan and the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the ROC
• Chunghwa Post: Commemorative 26 Retocession of Taiwan Commemorative Issue (1947)
• National 228 Memorial Museum: The 228 Incident. "In the so-called 'retrocession' of Taiwan in 1945 was a 'unification' of China and Taiwan. The 228 Incident was a side effect of this unification, caused by the enormous gaps between the Taiwanese and Chinese societies of the time, which made the two ill-suited to one another. " [Although the expressed opinion was not in favour of this name, the name is still used.]
• Ministry of Culture: 'Prison Island of Taiwan: Landscape of Injustice under White Terror'. "After the retrocession of Taiwan, the center was taken over by the Republic of China Navy and divided into a military dependents' village, a telecommunication station, and the Fongshan Guest House."
• National Taiwan University Hospital: After Retrocession of Taiwan (1945~-1950)

Second, it is not like the Handover of Hong Kong, which is almost exclusively used for the transfer of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China, although the handover of Hong Kong happened many times in history, at least twice in 1945. Whenever we used "transfer", "handover" or "takeover" for Taiwan, it confuses people and then a lot of further descriptions will be added, e.g. "from Japan" or "to the Republic of China."

Third, if you want to rename any of the two pages, I think it might be better to discuss on the talk page and request more comments from the community.

In line with my third point, I encourage further input from the community on this matter. Free ori (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncle. These are fair points, especially the bullets distinguishing the historical events. I agree the three articles should probably be kept separate (though we can address the overlap in content later).

To address the common name vs. less controversial option, I do think there is a lot of room for discussion given the policy around NPOV and WP:NDESC. A recent example would be the move from Uyghur genocide to Persecution of Uyghurs in China (discussion), where arguably Uyghur genocide is very widely used and the common name, both in news coverage and academics. But it is a non-neutral term, and the current tile is better as a non-judgmental description of the event. My view is that is the case here, and I welcome your and others’ thoughts on this. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

1. I have never stated whether I agree or disagree with the title Persecution of Uyghurs in China. Actually, I find both sides have some valid points.

2. According to WP:NCENPOV, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Considering its current names on Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia, as well as English-language sources from Taiwan and elsewhere, this is a common name.

3. I prefer to be addressed in a gender-neutral manner. Thank you. Free ori (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see Say Uncle for what seems like a misunderstanding. We are in agreement on the earlier points. Let us see what others think about #2, because I think that it is related to the discussions in Persecution of Uyghurs in China, which I brought up as a relevant precedent. Butterdiplomat (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)