Talk:Taiwan/Archive 11

Lynn's national IQ ranking?

- Very controversial book, not peer reviewed . Many refuse to accept its claims or its often arbitrary score assignments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.117.226 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Occupied?

In the very first paragraph of the article it mentioned, "Since then, its authority has been limited to the island groups of Taiwan (Formosa) (occupied at the end of World War II), the Pescadores, Kinmen, and the Matsu Islands." What does occupied mean here? The ROC government occupied the island? Doesn't the word occupied seem a bit harsh? Can we try any other more gentle?Tsungyenlee (converse)、(Contribs) 13:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is useful information because the previous statements say of the ROC "Historically, it encompassed all of mainland China". Then suddenly it says "Since then(the end of the war), its authority has been limited to the island groups of Taiwan". This is confusing. It's like saying I had a Honda and a Ford but now all I have left is the BMW. How could I have the BMW if I never had it? The word "occupied" accurately describes what happened at the end of WWII. If you think it sounds harsh please suggest another equally accurate word. Readin (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given it some more thought and still think "occupied" is a good word here. Does "occupied" have to be a "harsh" word? In the Berlin article we see, "The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided." Is this meant to suggest that the U.S. was harsh in its treatment of the Germans? The article on Japan says "The Allied occupation ended by the Treaty of San Francisco in 1952[24]" Does this suggest to you that the Americans were brutal to the Japanese? The article on the Marshall Islands says "In World War II, the United States occupied the islands (1944), and they were added to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (including several more island groups in the South Sea)." Again this does not suggest that the U.S. treated the people harshly. Perhaps you consider the term "occupied" to be harsh because many occupations in history have been harsh, see the Japanese occupations of various countries for examples. That would suggest that finding another word with the same meaning would suffer the same problem because it is the meaning you dislike, not the word. But the meaning must remain because it is what happened. And even if the word is harsh, it is no harsher than the actual occupation during which so many Taiwanese were killed and discriminated against.Readin (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Occupied is highly POVish, in that it inherently assumes that the ROC did not legitimately (re)acquire Taiwan. This is a POV that is almost solely held by Taiwan independence supporters; as such, I will be removing it if it hasn't already.Ngchen (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you get that occupied implies or assumes lack of legitimacy? I gave several examples above where the legitimacy is not questioned. If you still have doubts, consider the relevant definitions from Merriam-Webster, to take or hold possession or control of and to reside in as an owner or tenant. The definitions say nothing about legitimacy. I'll try a different word (colonized) but I don't you'll like it any better since "occupied" is the most neutral accurate word I could come up with. Please suggest something better if you don't think it works. And before you go claiming that "colonize" is also biased, please consider what it actually means "to make a colony" where "colony" means "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state" (again from Merriam-Webster).

As I pointed out, it's not so much a question of the words being biased, it's a question of the facts being biased. The KMT entered a defeated Taiwan with soldiers who were nearly all non-Taiwanese and leaders who were nearly all non-Taiwanese, didn't get the Taiwanese a voice in how they were governed, and violently suppressed dissent. You may not like those facts. You may find them biased. But that is what happened. "occupy" is a pretty benign word for describing that process of sending in troops to run the place. It is used for pretty much the same situations in other parts of the word where no bias is intended. But come up with a better word if you can. We can't just leave out a fact because we think the fact is biased. Readin (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes colonized is also biased in that it implies that there is a colonizer, and a victim that gets colonized as some sort of inferior subject (unless there was nobody there at the start). I actually agree with the facts you pointed out. The ROC entered Taiwan with a force consisting almost exclusively of mainlanders, and ran the place as a dictatorship for decades. The reason "occupied" is POVish is that it implies that the legal sovereignty of Taiwan never transferred to the ROC. This argument is one that supporters of Taiwan independence often use to further their cause. They tend to cite the post-war Treaty of Peace with Japan to argue that the ROC rule of the island is somehow illegitimate. "Occupation does not transfer sovereignty" is a legal maxim that's well acepted. OTOH, if you accept the pro-China arguments along the lines of retrocession day being valid vis-a-vis the Japanese instrument of surrender, then there was no occupation. Sure, that's an opposing POV. I don't see why either POV needs to be presented here. They especially should not be presented as fact, which is the most blatant way to violate the NPOV policy.Ngchen (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to China upon the surrender of Japanese troops on the island. Hence, there was no "Taiwan Retrocession Day" -- that is just Chinese propaganda. The position of the ROC in Taiwan is (1) subordinate occupying power, as of Oct. 25, 1945, and (2) government in exile, as of mid-December 1949. The United States of America is the principal occupying power. Today, the ROC has "control" over Formosa and the Pescadores, but not sovereignty. Hmortar (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Occupation does not transfer sovereignty" is true, but it is also true that "Occupation does not invalidate transfer of sovereignty". In fact it is hard to imagine a transfer of sovereignty occurring without occupation. Readin (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the article on Taiwan where the transfer of sovereignty to the Japanese is described, this sentence appears "On May 25, 1895, a group of pro-Qing high officials proclaimed the Republic of Formosa to resist impending Japanese rule. Japanese forces entered the capital at Tainan and quelled this resistance on October 21, 1895." Based on that I'll try changing the word to "entered". Readin (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel a bit sorry about causing such a sensitive discussion here. I have to commit that I don't speak good English, and that's why the first impression came up to me when I saw the word occupied was negative. Hence I broached this issue here. However, I'd like to thank anyone who helped me learn more about the issue.Tsungyenlee (converse) 12:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, generally any article that pertains to Taiwan and the ROC are of a sensitive nature. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an important discussion but I can't help but think that it's quite off the point. Tsungyenlee was right to point out the problem with the word "occupation", but not because it's hard. Like Ngchen said, the word "occupation" directly implies that Taiwan is not part of ROC's territory, WM dictionary definition notwithstanding. Now I know there are pro-Taiwan independence supporters who would argue that to be the true. But even if that is the case, the word "annex" is much more appropriate, since Taiwan never had an independant government that exercized effective control over all of Taiwan other than the ROC. But anyway the ROC-never-gained-Taiwan-sovereignty argument is clearly a minority view and does not deserve to dictate the intro paragraph.

Furthermore, ROC and PRC both claim sovereignty over Taiwan, and both claims presume that Taiwan's sovereignty was returned to ROC after WWII. Every country in the world supports either ROC's or PRC's claim, so there's really no point bringing up the ROC-never-gained-Taiwan-sovereignty argument (should we give it a shorter name?) unless we are specifically talking about the Taiwanese independence movement.

Frankly, when I first saw the "occupied" word, I immediately assumed that the POV debate would be on the PRC vs. ROC claim: ROC claims sovereignty over Taiwan as well as all of China, whereas PRC claims ROC to be a renegade government that occupies Taiwan.

But anyway the offending phrase, which has since then been changed from "occupied" to "colonized" to "entered and assumed control", was quite superfluous in the intro paragraph. It suffices to say that ROC was limited to Taiwan after the communist revolution, how exactly she got there is a detail that should be dealt with in the history section. I'm removing the phrase. o (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not superflous because the previous wording left the distinct impression that Taiwan had been part of the "all of China" mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Switching "mainland China" to "Greater China" was further incorrect because ROC did not historically control areas considered part of "Greater China" like Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, or even Singapore which is sometimes considered part of "Greater China". Readin (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan had indeed been part of "all of China", even if the claim was only tenuous; but that's how the Chinese Empire worked. There are plenty of other regions, especially in the south, that were historically autonomous but still considered part of China. Yes I agree that "Greater China" isn't the best wording, but mostly because it isn't a clearly defined word to begin with. But in terms of this article, I think it's more accurate than the previous "mainland China".

I disagree that ROC did not historically control Taiwan: they did not actively govern it, but they did claim ownership and control. And as I stated above, their claim and control is not challenged by anyone but the current independene movement. Again, the phrase is superfluous because both ROC and PRC, as well as every other entity in the world, consider Taiwan to have been part of and ROC. That Taiwan was not part of China and that ROC's retreat to Taiwan constituted a new occupation or colonization is a pro-independence-specific POV. I'm not pointing any fingers, but unless you're pushing for a pro-independence POV, I consider all this to be delicate details that should be dealt with in the proper sections and separate articles instead of the intro. o (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "historically" used in the paragraph suggests more than just the 4 years from 1945 to 1949; it suggests the majority of the ROC history prior to 1949. For most of that time Taiwan was part of Japan and not at all part of the China that made up the ROC. If you define China to include Taiwan then you cannot say that historically the ROC's territory was all of China. If you do not include Taiwan in your definition of China, then there is a logical disconnect in saying that the ROC's territory was China and all that was left of that territory after 1949 was Taiwan. Typically when this issue of Taiwan and China is discussed, the term "mainland China" is used to differentiate. In this case it is doubly appropriate because in common usage "mainland China" often excludes Hong Kong and Macau, both of which the ROC never controlled. Readin (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; but I still can't agree with it completely. Yes, 1945 to 1949 is not a long time, but then ROC's "history" pre-Taiwan was pretty short to begin with. Following your arguement, one can equally make a case that ROC never controled all of mainland China at any time, so why do you allow "historically controlled mainland China" but insist on excluding Taiwan? But all this doesn't change the fact that these are historical details that should be dealt with in details in the appropriate sections and articles. You never address this objection, and I admit I've been sidetracked by your arguements.

Furthermore, if you read the sentence concerned, it reads awkwardly and doesn't fit in with the flow anyway.

Historically, it encompassed all of mainland China before the Kuomintang (KMT) lost effective control of mainland China to the Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War by the 1950s. Since then, its authority has been limited to the island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, Kinmen, and the Matsu Islands — Kuomintang forces entered and assumed control of these islands at the end of World War II.

Not only is the phrasing "entered and assumed control" questionable, this piece of information also isn't called for; if we're already talking about the Chinese Civil War, why jump back to WWII history again? I suppose you'll say that this is to clarify the difference between "mainland China" and ROC-controlled China, to which I would again argue that it should be left in the detailed section. o (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording does not flow well. My original wording flowed much better Since then, its authority has been limited to the island groups of Taiwan (Formosa) (occupied at the end of World War II), the Pescadores, Kinmen, and the Matsu Islands. However there we objections to using the most accurate concise word "occupied", forcing us to find more verbose ways of saying the same thing. But the information is still important, indeed critical, to understanding the Republic of China. If Taiwan had been an original part of the ROC, would 228 have happened? Would the outsiders have been more friendly to the Taiwanese rather than seeing them as collaborators with the Japanese? Would the Taiwanese view the outsiders less as outsiders? Would there be so much resentment against the outsiders who came in? Would the blue-green split be so deep? I'll try to find another way to get the information to fit. The reason I didn't object to the "all of mainland China" because I frankly am not very interested in Chinese history except in how China's neighbor Taiwan, so I don't actually know what areas the ROC controlled in China nor when. But if you say the ROC never controlled all of mainland China I'll believe you and try to adjust the words accordingly. Readin (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see now that you clearly have a pro-Taiwanese independence POV, but note that I am not accusing you of editorial misconduct, though I do think it makes the debate easier if your position is clarified. I know that the opinion you've voiced is not merely your personal view, but reflects the view of a certain segment of the independence movement, and it deserves its place in the article. Still, it is a minority view and should not be dictate the content of the intro. Yes, your original phrase ("...occupied...") did flow better in terms of the writing, but the wording was clearly inappropriate and was thus objected, we need not revive that discussion. On the other hand, your assertion that this information is important to understanding the ROC is highly debatable. Even granting your point that the Taiwanese populus did not see itself as part of ROC, it does not change the fact, accepted by most historians, that Taiwan was indeed part of China. The supposed lack of legitimacy or "control" is not a necessary criteria in sparking the later conflicts in Taiwan. The 228, the blue-green split, etc. all have plenty more factors than Taiwan's self identity at the end of WWII; and suggesting this issue to be "critical" to understanding ROC is an unproven claim. Similarly, all the rest of your hypothetical questions are just that: hypothetical questions, and has no merit outside of the independence debate.

Furthermore, yes, ROC's central government never held direct control over all of mainland China, that is a simple fact. But you need not bother yourself with adding that info in the intro, because, again, that is a historical detail that is only of interest to people looking for historical details. For all intents and purposes, all of mainland China was considered part of Qing, and therefore part of ROC and then part of PRC. The same is true for Taiwan: it was considered by all to be indeed part of China. You may or may not agree with this, but anyway the intro is just an intro and should not be bothered by these easly POVized details; they are better left to sections and articles where detailed treatment is possible.

The way I see it, the problem with these sentence rather lie in the word "control". If the "control" is interpreted as "having a legitimate and acknowledged claim as well as nominal control", there is no problem here. But if interpreted as "having direct governmental power", then the sentence is false. But as previously mentioned, the fact that ROC never held direct governmental control over all of mainland China, the "control" in this sentence is necessarily understood as "nominal control". Since the world "control" isn't a word with a single, clearly defined meaning in the diplomatic-historical language (as opposed to "occupy" for example), I don't see a need to fix this wording. But if you feel the need please feel free. o (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

About the name of the article

Shouldnt the name of the article be Taiwan instead of Republic of China? I understand that ROC is the OFFICIAL NAME, but mosy articles about countries have the popular name in the articles' title. For Example Argentina: "Argentina, officially the Argentine Republic (Spanish: República Argentina, Nación Argentina (Argentine Nation) for many legal purposes), is..." the official name isnt in the title of the article--Jim88Argentina (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The question has been raised before, but unfortunately got archived. Here's how I answered a question about naming in the past:

There are other articles for things like Taiwan, Taiwan Province, etc.. The official name of the political entity described by this article is 中华民国. This is true whether or not the official name is accurate. Many would say it is not because the 中华 implies that the ROC governs China when in fact it governs Taiwan. But the official name, accurate or not, is 中华民国, and it is that official entity that this article describes. We can't go renaming everything just because we don't like the names or don't think they accurately describe something. I know a guy named Buddy who is not, in fact, anyone's buddy. But I can't rename him. It is similarly beyond our power to rename the ROC(中华民国).

hmm, the above chinese characters are showing up as simplified. I wonder why.

and another one which I think directly addresses your question

In most countries, the government has a history of only governing that country. The United States of America, for example, has always had the majority of its lands within the area that it currently governs. The UK has always had at its core Scotland, Wales, and England. This cannot be said of the Republic of China. The Republic of China had a decent period of time when it did not govern the land that now makes up nearly all of what it now governs. This makes the relationship between Taiwan and the ROC different from the relationship between Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany. All history of Federal Republic of Germany is the history of Germany. But the early history of the Republic of China has nothing to do with Taiwan. So renaming an article about the Republic of China, an article which must certainly cover its history, to a name that includes "Taiwan" would be difficult. I think the only way to do that would be as someone suggested, to separate it into pre-1949 and post-1949. However, to do so would be to ignore the continuity of ROC governmental personnel and structures even as the land and peoples governed changed. Also, the separation of the "Taiwan" article from the "Republic of China" article is fitting in that for many years the ROC was a government of occupation rather than a native government.

When someone suggested merging the Taiwan and Republic of China articles, Nat said it quite succinctly with

Not identical. "Taiwan" refers to the island. "Republic of China" refers to the state.

Readin (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)