Talk:Taiwan under Qing rule

First "Chinese" occupation of Taiwan

This article states that the Qing rule period (from 1683) is the first time in history that China occupied Taiwan. I'm a little iffy on this because back then the Manchus were not considered Chinese, but Koxinga (Ming) was. I'm inclined to think that when the Dutch surrendered in 1662, that was the first time that Taiwan was under ethnic (Han) Chinese occupation AND administration. I'm interested in everyone's opinion on this topic.

-- Adeptitus 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Koxinga's kingdom was not considered as "China", he didn't conquer or occupy both Taiwan and China at the same time. It's correct that his men were Han Chinese; however, at that time most of the people on Taiwan were the Taiwanese aborigines. It was during the Qing Dynasty that there were more people moved to Taiwan from China.--Jerrypp772000 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

They did actually. Get your facts right Taekhosong (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"an attempted uprising every three years and a revolt every five years."

"an attempted uprising every three years and a revolt every five years."

Can anyone find exact quote, carefully sourced? Thanks! --Ling.Nut 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Quote given & sourced in Taiwanese aborigines in the Qing Rule section. --Ling.Nut 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"more than a hundred rebellions"

"more than a hundred rebellions when Qing ruled" Anyone can find a source to this statement? Redcloud822 05:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Quote given & sourced in Taiwanese aborigines in the Qing Rule section. In a footnote... --Ling.Nut 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Header dispute

The start of this article has serious issues. First, the notion that China only ruled Taiwan for the first time during the Qing dynasty is questionable, with certain sources arguing for previous Ming rule, and/or connections with the Yuan. If multiple reliable sources are in conflict, the conflict should be described rather than glossed over. Second, the "only time China ruled Taiwan for more than five years" is really dubious; everything else aside, what about the regime there today? It ruled and rules there (fairly or not, rightly or wrongly) for 62+ years as of 2008. To imply that the present rule is somehow "not Chinese" is POV pushing.Ngchen (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The ROC until very recently was Chinese, but it was not China after 1949. However, given your legitimate concerns about claims that China first ruled Taiwan when the Qing took over, we can maintain NPOV by removing both statements. I hope you don't mind that I also removed the "disputed" tag. Readin (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The ROC was (and is still theoretically organized) as a Chinese government. There is another Chinese government in the mainland that they are in a dispute with. It's a unique situation because it's technically the same nation and even the same diplomatic state, but there are different political governments. There are other examples where there's one nation with two states, like Korea, but there's no other example where there are serious questions about the diplomatic status of the actual state. Like you would not say there's a one Korea policy, there's one Korean people but definitely two separate states.2601:140:8900:61D0:3999:8D67:580C:E79D (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Things look OK now.Ngchen (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Han and aborigines

Nice additions Pyl. The article needed more substance and you provided some.

However, I think this paragraph may give a false impression, or perhaps I have a false impression:

Despite the restrictions, the population of Han Chinese in Taiwan grew rapidly from 100,000 to 2,500,000, while the population of Indigenous Taiwanese peoples shrank. The Han Chinese also occupied most of the plains and developed good agricultural systems and prosperous commence, and consequently transformed Taiwan into a Han society.

Consider this paragraph from Taiwan aborigine

During the Qing Dynasty’s two-century rule over Taiwan, the population of Han on the island increased dramatically. However, it is not clear to what extent this was due to an influx of Han settlers, who were predominantly displaced young men from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou in Fujian province (Tsao 1999:331) or from a variety of other factors, including: frequent intermarriage between Han and Aborigines, the replacement of aboriginal marriage and abortion taboos, and the widespread adoption of the Han agricultural lifestyle due to the depletion of traditional game stocks, which may have led to increased birth rates and population growth. Moreover, the acculturation of Aborigines in increased numbers may have intensified the perception of a swell in the number of Han.

I know I've read that the marriage rate between aborigine women and Han men was so high that there was a saying that went something like "every maternal grandmother an aborigine, every paternal grandfather a Han" (if you know it please correct it because I'm sure I didn't get it exaclty right).

The paragraph in the article leaves the impression that the Han moved in and the aborgines moved out. Instead it may have been more of an assimilation, with many aborigines staying in place while adapting Han customs, and other aborigines assimilating through marriage. Readin (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Readin. I appreciate it.

Yeah your quote is interesting because it seems to suggest a different picture from the information that I extracted from the government information office website. I just re-read the website, as well as the Chinese version of this article, neither of them said anything about the inter-marriage of the two groups of people being the main reason for the low indigenous population. However, a related extract from the Chinese version of the article says as follows:-

..., 而漢人也經常侵占其土地，或做黑心交易，因此常有漢番衝突產生。當時清廷委實不願多管，索性採「畫界封山」政策，劃定番界，並設石碑於界線，將漢人以及原住民隔離，同時也設「理番同知」一官調節其紛爭。但應政策不落實，且理番同知皆為漢人，原住民容易就吃虧。所以原住民土地常被明爭暗奪，有時漢人甚至以通婚之名佔據土地，多人仍越過番界來耕種、經商，衝突仍十分頻繁。

The Han people frequently occupied the indigenous land or conducted illegal business with the indigenous peoples, so conflicts often happened. During that time, the Qing government was not interested in managing this matter. It simply drew the borders and closed up the mountain area so they could segregate the two groups. It also implemented a policy which assumed that the indigenous peoples would understand the law as much as the Han Chinese, so when conflicts arose the indigenous peoples tended to be judged unfairly. Accordingly, indigenous land were often taken through both legal and illegal methods, sometimes the Han Chinese even used inter-marriage as an excuse to occupy land. Many people crossed the maintain borders to farm and to conduct business, and conflicts frequently arose.

What would you suggest? Should I put the above paragraph in the article so it gives a more complete picture?--Pyl (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the Chinese version of the article also said the following relating to inter-marriage:-

又對大陸人民移民台灣嚴格限制，禁止攜帶家眷，故渡台者多半為單身男子，或是已有家眷，但受限制無法攜帶妻子來台的已婚男子。因此，早期渡台男子者多半選擇與平埔族女子通婚，因此而有所謂「有唐山公、無唐山媽」的說法。

There were severe restrictions on mainland residents migrating to Taiwan: no family members could accompany the migrant. Therefore, most migrants were mostly single men or married men with wives remaining on the mainland. Most early male migrants to Taiwan would choose to marry the women from the Ping Pu clan. Accordingly, there was a saying which stated that "there were mainland men, but no mainland women".--Pyl (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you used the GIO for your source. That makes sense. When I had time to look for info I saw that site and it agreed with what you said. We need to get a reference in the article (a reference as apposed to a "see also"). I'm not sure exactly which stuff you took from that site so if you don't mind I'll let you put the references in.

Since you have a reliable source (if the KMT held the presidency I would suggest that they want to emphasize the "Han-ness" of the modern population, but with the DPP holding the presidency and presumably control over the GIO, I won't suggest that) we'll have to leave it pretty much as is until we can find another reliable source to clarify things. Readin (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Shimonoseki

W/r/t the question of whether Taiwan was "ceded" to Japan back in 1895, I am of the opinion that in this article it should read along the lines of Taiwan being "ceded." The reason is that, although many Chinese will argue that the cession was illegal, the position is such that it's a distinctly minority view, and that for all practical terms, Taiwan was ceded back then. Ngchen (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The view of both the governments of the ROC and the PRC is the minority view. For all practical terms, Japan took control of Taiwan. Cession is a legal term not a practical term.--pyl (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Taiwan immediately became a fully legitimate part of Japan despite Japan having never occupied it before and only doing so after a war of aggression and conquest. Not the Baltic states literally never stopped existing and were not at any point Soviet territory, despite being part of Russia for hundreds of years beforehand. Why do westerners always want it both ways? 2601:140:8900:61D0:3999:8D67:580C:E79D (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked up "cede" in Google and came up with a load of definitions. Please look them over.

to yield or formally surrender to another: to cede territory.

To surrender possession of, especially by treaty. See Synonyms at relinquish.

To yield or surrender; to give up; to resign; as, to cede a fortress, a province, or country, to another nation, by treaty.

1. give over; surrender or relinquish to the physical control of another syn: concede 2. relinquish possession or control over; "The squatters had to surrender the building after the police moved in" syn: surrender

1 : to yield or grant usually by treaty

(transitive) To give up, give way, give away.

To surrender possession of, especially by treaty

1  : to yield or grant typically by treaty

I don't see anything about how once it has happened, it can somehow unhappen. Even the claim that it is solely "is a legal term not a practical term" is dubious as no mention of such occurs in any of the definitions. If you wish to that claim please provide some evidence. And if you want to make the claim that once something has been ceded, it can never have happened (It happened. Those were real Japanese soldiers in Taiwan.)

As further evidence that Taiwan was ceded to Japan we have

hese islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty of China in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which came into effect in May of 1895. and

the islands of Formosa and the Pescadores were ceded to Japan and

Article 2 of the Treaty of Shimonoseki and

In 1885 another Treaty of Tientsin concluded the Sino-French War and ceded Annam (now in Vietnam) to France, while the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed in 1895 following the Sino-Japanese War, ceded Taiwan and the Pescadores to Japan, and

In 1895, as a result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki after the Sino-Japanese War, China ceded Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands to Japan,.

Please find some verifiability for the dubious claims that contradict these reliable sources. Readin (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You probably are not aware of the legal concept of void ab initio. It is legally treated as the event never took place at all. Cession is a legal term meaning transfer of sovereignty. Legally, proper application of the unequal treaty doctrine can enable legal arguments to be mounted so the event is legally treated as never ever took place.

I am not disputing that there were real Japanese soldiers in Taiwan. They didn't have to be there just because legally there was a transfer of sovereignty. They could be there due to military occupation. Similarly, I am sure some Taiwan independence supporters would argue that Taiwan is currently under ROC's military occupation. There are real ROC soldiers in Taiwan as well, and I am sure the supporters won't use this as evidence that the ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan.

Japan did take over control of Taiwan. This is not disputed. But part of the ROC/PRC sovereignty theory disputes the act of taking over control as transfer of sovereignty (that is, cessession).--pyl (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the concept. But pretending something didn't happen, even if it is legally sanctioned pretending, does not mean that something didn't actually happen.

The difference between the real Chinese soldiers who entered Taiwan at the end of WWII and the real Japanese soldiers who entered Taiwan is that the real Japanese soldiers entered based on a real document that the Qing had really agreed to that granted sovereignty to Japan. To the extent that the Qing could legitimately claim sovereignty over Taiwan, they really transferred that sovereignty to Japan.

The Chinese soldiers who entered Taiwan didn't really have similar document saying that the Japanese had really transferred that sovereignty to the ROC. All they had was an order from the Japanese emperor that the Japanese troops in Taiwan should surrender to the ROC. The status of the country was to be determined later. There are certainly arguments to be made to say that later agreements did transfer sovereignty over Taiwan to the ROC. But no agreement made later can undo the fact of what happened earlier. The long presence of troops may create sovereignty simply as a matter of accomplished fact, but that is different from saying that a state had a right to sovereignty from day 1.

Since you have a fondness for legal terms, how do you feel about ex post facto laws? Readin (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The treaty the Qing signed was forced upon them, the ROC did not recognize it at legitimate due to its involuntary nature. If I put a gun to your head and force you to sign a document handing over your house, usually this document would not be later recognized in court. To request a new treaty over the issue transferring sovereignty back to China, would in effect be recognizing the legitimacy of the first treaty and giving their blessing to Japanese sovereignty over the area. But since they didn't recognize the treaty in the first place, they did not need a second one. Just like I wouldn't need to convince the kidnapper in this instance to sign another document transferring control of my house back to me, nor would the deed be modified to recognize the brief transfer in the ownership of my house between me signing the first document under gunpoint and him signing the second in prison. From my perspective, it never would have happened, he can go pound sand. It would be offensive for him to even suggest that signing another document is necessary n such an instant, it would not do him much good in court to seriously still be trying to dispute the point.2601:140:8900:61D0:3999:8D67:580C:E79D (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that whether the ROC recognizes the treaty or not does not affect the legitimacy of the treaty. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The majority of post-war treaties outlining the cession of territories are "unequal". China is not unique in this regard. Certainly, the Treaty of Shimonoseki was forced upon China. But virtually every other treaty of such a nature can also be described as having been "forced". For example, the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Trianon. Even the Treaty of San Francisco, which Japan signed with the United States and other Allies post-WWII, can be described as having been "forced" and "unequal". In that treaty, Japan lost sovereignty over Korea, Taiwan & the Pescadores, South Sakhalin & the Kuril Islands, and the South Pacific Mandate. Even if you argue that these territories never "rightfully" belonged to Japan in the first place, Japan still also lost control over several territories that are recognised as sovereign Japanese territory today, the most notable of which is the Ryukyu Islands, which the United States "occupied" for a few decades before "returning" them to Japan. From the Japanese perspective, Taiwan was a rightful sovereign territory of Japan from 1895 until 1945 and was only formally relinquished in 1952. The position of Japan regarding this matter should be considered just as much as the positions of the PRC and the ROC are. Furthermore, the position/s of Taiwanese people themselves, who have not governed their own destiny since 1895, should also be taken into account. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The documents that you mentioned are besides the issue if the original documents were obtained with (with civil law concept) duress. This is the case where unequal treaty doctrine can be applicable.

Ex post facto laws don't apply in this case and those laws are normally illegal even outside international context.

Also, having an edit summary like what you like to have "eg Chinese slaves, pretending past never happened, Ma's merger policy" would appear to me that you are biased in this matter.--pyl (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You think I'm biased. I believe you're biased. That's what the WP:Verifiability is all about. More importantly, it's why we should discuss the arguments and evidences presented rather than speculating on motivations. The arguments and evidence should stand or fall on their own no matter what the biase of the people presenting them. I've presented reliable sources. You should be able to do the same. Legal reasoning is almost always written down. Court proceedings are kept. Verdicts are kept. Contracts are kept. The world's legal systems are probably better documented than any other realm of human endeavor. If you what you are saying holds water, then it should be a trivial exercise to find reliable sources. We'll still have to consider how much weight to give the legal point of view, of course, but it won't help without some reasonable sourcing.

One problem with the "void ab initio" reasoning in international situations is that if one were to apply the concepts of "unequal treaties" and "under duress" as reasons for such things, then nearly all current conditions are "void ab initio". But nonetheless, we need some sources.Readin (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we as editors are here to make legal arguments or to debate the merits of legal arguments, so please forgive me as I am not going into it. I am simply just stating the positions of both the ROC and PRC governments. They are mainstream POV and should be taken into account. As you are aware, at this stage, this POV is completely ignored in the article. To this end, I do not see any issue of biase on my behalf.

I agree with you that we need sources to state the two Chinese governments' POV. That's the reason why I didn't go change the article. As I said previously, I am on holidays at the moment and I don't have the time nor energy to go into that at this stage.--pyl (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To use a particulary infamous example, the Indiana legislature once considered and nearly passed a law that would have made pi=3, rather than the more commonly used "3.14" (not to mention the irrational number) because changing pi to 3 would have simplified calculations, particularly for the children struggling to learn geometry.

Had this law passed, would you be on the all the geometry related pages to make sure that the non-3 value isn't stated with too much certainty? Wouldn't the position of the Indiana legislature need to be considered?

This is a similar situation. The Qing ceded Taiwan to Japan. It happened. You say say that it was wrong, that it was done under duress, and that it doesn't or shouldn't carry any legal weight into the future. But none of that changes the fact that it happened.

To this end, I do not see any issue of biase on my behalf. You mentioned simply just stating the positions of both the ROC and PRC governments. That is an example of your bias. You give a lot of weight to PRC views on Taiwan even though the PRC has nothing to do with issues like this. I suspect this may be an outgrowth of your bigger bias, a tendency to place heavy emphasis on what laws, especially "international law". This is not an unusual bias, most of us have been through education systems run by a government that has a vested interest in making us trust the government to do and say the right thing. However in this area you seem to have a larger bias than most.

I don't want to continue on this line of argument. I simply hope you'll recognize that like everyone else, including me, you have your biases. Readin (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

From the perspective of the ROC and the PRC, the Japanese claim to Taiwan was like claiming pi is 3.14. Indiana did not have to pass a second law to undo their temporary nullification of the laws of geometry, it never was. To pass a second law changing the value of pi from 3 to 3.14 would just further confuse the issue. You change the value of pi from 3 to 3.14 anymore than your can change it from 3.14 to 3. Also FYI if the Chinese were illegal invaders, then you are the descendant of illegal invaders. You already took the aboriginals land, try not to further insult them by trying to claim their culture as well simply to further your political disputes. The language you speak, I would assume it's not a dialect of Japanese or Austronesian. No matter how much you wish it Chinese blood is not suddenly going to stop flowing through your veins. 2601:140:8900:61D0:3999:8D67:580C:E79D (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I am on holidays and I don't have time to look for references. I will deal with that later.--pyl (talk)

(outdent) Readin said:

The Qing ceded Taiwan to Japan. It happened. You say say that it was wrong, that it was done under duress, and that it doesn't or shouldn't carry any legal weight into the future. But none of that changes the fact that it happened.

No, I didn't say it was wrong. Please read what I said as I am really not into circular arguments. As I said, I was simply stating the mainstream POVs of the PRC and the ROC. If you wish to change their minds, please address your arguments to them. I will cite the references when I have time.

I don't have any preference for the PRC view. But I find it a common bias for Wikipedia articles that the PRC view is quite often completely ignored. I fail to understand why the PRC "has nothing to do with issues like this". The PRC claims Taiwan as part of their territory, and their claim is acknowledged by most countries in the world. Their sovereignty theory on Taiwan is therefore completely relevant. It is, on the other hand, quite curious to me to trivialise the PRC's POV.--pyl (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To "acknowledge" something is not to agree with it. And as editors we are supposed to consider the bias of sources - for example the bias that most nations will have in favor of saying whatever will please the ears of the leaders of the a market containing 1 billion people.

How many legs does a dog have if the UN and 200 countries say that a tail is a leg? Readin (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're engaging in WP:OR here. Anyway, I filed a request for a third opinion yesterday. Hopefully an uninvolved editor can clear this problem up. Ngchen (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We're engaging in a discussion about the value of various sources. Should laws be considered as reliable sources of knowledge even when the writers of the laws are known to have strong biases? Regardless of bias, can something be considered "law" if there is no power to enforce? Readin (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in law reform, I suggest that you pursue it through other means. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for it. Issues of legislators so called biases and enforcement of the law is outside the scope of an online encyclopedia.--pyl (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of changing the law. It's a question of treating law as an infallible source of knowledge. This is an encylclopedia, not a lawbook. Readin (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You are extremely argumentative and like to use circular arguments.

You talked about law, then when people respond to that, you then changed your arguments and said it is not about the law. "Transfer of sovereignty" is a question of law. "Taking over control" is a question of fact. The PRC and the ROC are not disputing the fact. They are saying, under international law, "transfer of sovereignty" never took place. Is it that hard to understand?

Likewise, you could have used "Republic of China (Taiwan)" for Taipei at first place. But you chose to push your politics onto other people and decided to start another edit war when we have been over that discussion previously. Taiwan as a country is not acceptable. Any changes to put Taiwan as a country will always be subject to contention. In the interest of being more productive for you and for myself, I would ask you to stop doing it. Let's just save some time because this is boring.--pyl (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If one is treating "sovereignty" as a legal possession that can only be given and taken according to contract-like laws, the Qing had no sovereignty because the Taiwanese aborigines never willingly gave it up. However, sovereignty is usually just transferred by fact of transfer - by fact of power. And it isn't necessarily a legal term (though some people prefer to see every word as a solely legal term, there are other uses for words). See 2 a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control : autonomy c: controlling influence for example. Whether one has " supreme power ... over a body politic" is not something can be retro-actively taken. All the courts in the world could opine that Stalin never had a right to exercise such control over Russia and other countries, he did it anyway. Whether or not Japan should have had such control over Taiwan may be debated, but they did have such control and no one is disputing that.

An opinion that Stalin never was the leader of Russia would be extremely eccentric to say the least. Anyway, if the Han in Taiwan wish to undo their legacy of colonialism and give their nation back to the aborigines, they are free to do so. Just give the keys to their house to the remaining aboriginals, and return to their homeland in the mainland China. Or maybe if the aboriginals wish to retake their homeland they can fight a war against the Han Chinese, win this war, and ethnically cleanse the Han Chinese from the island, sort of like Israel did. I don't they would have the military force to enforce that claim though, also it would probably get them into a lot of trouble with China, naturally they would come to the defense of their Han brethren in the island to prevent a genocide of the occupiers. At the end of the day, Japan did not have the military force to maintain control of their claims in the long term, they chose to bully the wrong target.2601:140:8900:61D0:3999:8D67:580C:E79D (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll respond to the question about Taipei on the talk:Taipei page. Readin (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are also over the arguments where you like to use an ordinary dictionary when the term has legal meanings. Please go back and read the "occupation" debate.--pyl (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

THe taiwanese people rejected shimonseki treaty

see Republic of Taiwan (1895), and its chinese language version, taiwanese people wanted to stay under qing rule and reject the japanese invaders.

There was in fact a declaration of independence by a group of Taiwanese, and there was armed resistance against the Japanese. See Japanese Invasion of Taiwan (1895). The Japanese Invasion of Taiwan (1895) article has some references you can probably make use of to put something about the resistance to the ceding of Taiwan to Japan. However, to go an extra step and say "taiwanese people wanted to stay under qing rule and reject the japanese invaders" you need a little more. It is not uncommon in history for a region to go to war to resist a new or existing government even if only a fraction of the people agree with the war makers. For example, I've seen estimates that in the American Revolution only about 1/3 wanted the war. Another 1/3 wanted to remain part of Britain. I've also read that only a small fraction of Russians supported the Bolsheviks. Readin (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

readin just go' owned

Republic of Taiwan (1895), Declaration of Independence

The declaration, in the original Chinese, reads as follows:

“ 日寇強橫，欲併台灣。台民曾派代表詣闕力爭，未蒙俞允。局勢危急，日寇將至。我如屈從，則家鄉將淪於夷狄；如予抗拒，則實力較弱，恐難持久。業與列國迭次磋商，儉謂台灣必先自立，始可予我援助。台灣同胞，誓不服倭，與其事敵，寧願戰死。爰經大會議決，台灣自立，改建民主國；官吏皆由民選，一切政務秉公處理。但為禦敵及推行新政，必須有一元首，俾便統率，以維持秩序而保安寧。巡撫承宣布政使唐景崧為萬民所敬仰，故由大會公推為台灣民主國總統……。 ”

Roughly translated (i.e. with derogatory references to the Japanese removed), it says:

"The Japanese are powerful, and intend to annex Taiwan. The representatives of the residents of Taiwan had pleaded to the (Qing) court, but were turned down. The situation is dire, as the Japanese are approaching. Should we capitulate, our home would fall to enemy hands; should we resist, our strength is weak and could not withstand such aggression. (We) have negotiated with several foreign powers, and concluded that Taiwan must become independent in order for aids to come. The people of Taiwan will never capitulate to Japan; (we) would fight to the death rather than serve the enemy. According to the decision of the assembly, Taiwan shall become independent, and established as a democratic republic. All government officials shall be chosen by the people, and all official affairs shall be carried out impartially. To defend the new state and enforce new policy, there shall be a president to coordinate and manage the resources to maintain order and secure peace. Governor Tang Ching-sung is admired and approved by the people, thus was elected by the assembly as the President of the Republic of Formosa..."

And what reliable source says that the people of Taiwan supported this Declaration? Readin (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you support foreign conquest of your country? Who would do that? What language did the people in the island speak, I assume it's not a dialect of Japanese.2601:140:8900:61D0:3999:8D67:580C:E79D (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

I can completely sympathize with the desire to claim that a hated event never took place - I went for eight years without once referring to Bush by the title of President. And I still think the events that led to his appointment were a travesty. But that doesn't allow me to claim as a fact that his rule was legally illegitimate.
It's indisputable that Taiwan was ceded in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, whether it was "right" or "fair" or anything else. I've read through the arguments and supplementary material, and there's no legal case for asserting that the treaty was void ab initio. Nor does the rebellion change the fact of cession. (By that argument, you could claim China never owned Taiwan in the first place.) arimareiji (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is premature to have an opinion on "there's no legal case for asserting that the treaty was avoid ab initio" when no court has made the decision and I haven't even supplied any references for that. Don't you think it would be necessary to see the references before having an opinion?--pyl (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read through all the material you've supplied; you haven't adequately supported your claim. If you want to add material to do so, I'll read it as well. arimareiji (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to make a claim of conquest but do not actually have the military force to back that up in the long term, and eventually lose control of your attempted conquest, you should not expect the victims to recognize the conquest. Japan picked the wrong country to fuck with, it could not enforce its claims. China could, and eventually they liberated their Han brethren on the island.2601:140:8900:61D0:3999:8D67:580C:E79D (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Qing Emperor Kangxi annexed (western) Taiwan because he wanted"

There are two obvious POVs on this. First, because the Qing never actually controlled eastern Taiwan, they never "annexed" it. On the other hand, I believe Pyl when he says that under the treaties the Qing laid claim to all of Taiwan. It seems that both the current wording "Qing Emperor Kangxi annexed Taiwan..." and the previous wording "The Manchu Qing Emperor Kangxi annexed western Taiwan..." can be misleading. Perhaps it needs to provide more information and say that "The Qing claimed Taiwan..." and then mention in a subsequent sentence that they were only able to control the western part of the country. Or perhaps the information about the realities of Qing control would fit better in the first sentence of the article. "The Qing Dynasty ruled western Taiwan from 1683 to 1895." I'll do that for now. Readin (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe we have to argue this. I don't believe that any reliable source would argue that Qing China only occupied over western Taiwan and the whole act was an act of an act of occupation instead of annexation. I believe it was an internationally recognised act of annexation for the whole of Taiwan. The reliable source that I cited for this artcle when I was rewriting it was the Government Information Office of the Republic of China website while the DPP was still in power. And as you said at the time, the source was likely to be neutral (to you) and reliable because the DPP was in power then.

Let's put it in another perspective.

Queen Victoria ruled the area surronding Sydney from xxxx to xxxx. Queen Victoria in xxxx sent an army led by general xxxx to occupy Australia. While claiming the entire continent, the Queen succeeded in subduing Sydney, however the remaining of the Australian continent remained under indigenous control.

I just changed your paragraph from an Australian perspective. Now you see there is an agenda being pushed? This paragraph to be read to any reasonable person that the author is pushing for an Australia being occupied theory. I wouldn't believe that any reasonable person would conceive a mainsteam publications like Wikipedia would write this about Australia. This POV is too extreme.

If you wish to avocate an occupation theory for Taiwan, please cite reliable sources.--pyl (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll look for a reliable source on the extent of the occupation. As for the Australia comparison, it looks ok to me. Similar things happened in the America for example, when Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory from France. Neither America nor France actually occupied most of the territory, but all the western powers recognized the purchase.

In one of our early encounters I believe you were trying to castigate me for not paying enough attention to the Taiwanese aboriginal POV. Is it wrong now to note their perspective?

I know about your sensitivity to the word "occupation", but are you going to say that even when a foreign power comes in for the very first time ever and does so with an Army to take control, that even that act is not at least initially an occupation? Readin (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So now you are seriously arguing that it is a mainstream POV that paragraphs like the ones you drafted should serve as the opening paragraphs of an article?

The point of your paragraph wasn't about the indigenous peoples on Taiwan at all. What you were trying to illustrate was an theory of occupation. Because Qing China apparently didn't exercise control over the whole of the territory they claimed and therefore Taiwan wasn't Chinese. You were, as usual, pushing for a Taiwan independence agenda. The point of your paragraph wasn't at all arguing that Taiwan belongs to the indigenous peoples.

If you are genuinely into indigenous rights, you would have demostrated it a lot more in the past. I don't think, judging from your past edits, that was your top priority.

No, it wasn't always an act of occupation. It could be an act of annexation. As you said earlier, this was how parts of the US territory was annexed. No mainstream publication would describe the US annexation as an act of occupation.

If you geninuely believe your paragraphs were suitable as opening paragraph, could I invite you to do something similar in a US, Canadian, New Zealand or Australian related article first and let's see how it goes? I am quite sure that wouldn't go down too well, as that POV is quite marginal.--pyl (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time here, but quickly:

"The Oregon country was jointly occupied (and hotly contested) by Britain and the United States." - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500823_11/united_states_history.html Readin (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link and the research (I am not being sarcastic).

But I think your link has just proven my point. First, the opening paragraph wasn't saying ...... occupied......., like your drafted paragraph. Second, the article didn't use occupation in a legalist way, as it also used "occupied" to describe the indigenous peoples. In this manner, that's acceptable, as the context clearly shows that it wasn't alleging the white settlers of being illegitimate (but your drafted paragraph was).

For your easier reading (because you dont have much time), it said:-

"These lands were formally owned by other countries and occupied by independent indigenous peoples. California was part of Mexico. The Oregon country was jointly occupied (and hotly contested) by Britain and the United States"--pyl (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that term can be used without necessarily invoking a legalistic meaning? Readin (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But not in the way you did it in the past, as the context was either ambigous or in a way that attacked ROC's legitimacy.--pyl (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add though, there are many other words that can be used without any ambiguity. I don't see why there is a need to use this word at first place other than attracting contention.--pyl (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved the page

I have moved the page from "Taiwan under Qing Dynasty rule" to "Taiwan under Qing rule". First, we have reached a strong consensus that "dynasty" should not be capitalized in "Qing dynasty", "Ming dynasty", etc. (see Talk:Han dynasty#Han Dynasty to Han dynasty and WT:NC-CHINA#Capitalization: "Foo Dynasty" or "Foo dynasty"? (RFC)). Qing dynasty is the new official title for the Qing.

"Under Qing dynasty rule" sounds unnatural. I've done an ngram search for "under Qing rule", "under Qing dynasty rule", "under Qing-dynasty rule", and "under Qing Dynasty rule". As it turns out, "under Qing rule" is the only one that gets results results.[1] I therefore think this move is uncontroversial. If someone disagrees, though, please feel free to revert, and I will make a formal request for move. Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Lalung, Formosa

http://zerkalomiroir.tumblr.com/post/104417662570/tsai-ming-liang-about-stray-dogs-while-scouting

http://rubd.tumblr.com/post/80274286667/lalung-formosa-taiwan-photograph-by-john

Yuen-Fu Monastery, Formosa (1870) – John Thomson

http://sugarmeows.tumblr.com/post/7215613207/yuen-fu-monastery-formosa-1870-john-thomson

Yuen-fu Monastery Cave, Fukien province, China.

http://brassmanticore.tumblr.com/post/58930647086/yuen-fu-monastery-cave-fukien-province-china

Rajmaan (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taiwan under Japanese rule which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Dawley

Content added by User:Horse Eye's Back contains original research from an argument piece by Dawley. The line Some Taiwanese rejected specifically the idea that they be colonized by Japan, preferring Great Britain or France instead. is not supported by the article. The article states that some attempted to avoid colonization only by Japan and were amenable to annexation by Britain or France instead. No Taiwanese or their specific rejection of Japan in preference to Britain or France are mentioned. The reason is because this is likely a reference to the pro-Qing Republic of Formosa's attempt to forestall Japanese colonization by appealing to Western powers such as France or Britain. That's why the article prefaces this with the efforts of officials and elites to prevent Japanese takeover. The other sentence The Qing never considered Taiwan to be part of their essential imperial territory and as a result they were willing to use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Japan. is not stated in the article either, although that is its implication. The author makes a distinction between Taiwan and Liaodong, which was considered essential imperial territory, but does not state that Taiwan was not. The article states that most considered Taiwan to be less important than Liaodong and could be surrendered while some individuals argued that it should not be surrendered. Neither are substantiated in the source with citations as it is an argumentative think piece in a political publication. Unless a more reliable source can be provided to substantiate the content, it should not be kept. The author's use of the RoF's appeals to Western intervention against Japanese takeover as a separate opinion is particularly egregious since it comes from the same person according to Rubinstein 2015, p. 206: After the May 20 edict, Governor T'ang Ching-sung and his aides in Taipei took advantage of the unstable situation and endeavored to carry on anti-Japanese resistance under an island regime, labeled the "Taiwan Republic." T'ang still professed to be a loyal Ch'ing servitor, however. The desperate act of forming a "republic" (min-chu-kuo), he alleged, was to delay the Japanese occupation so that one or another of the Western powers (France, in particular) might be prompted to come to the defense of Taiwan or be induced to take possession of the island in lieu of Japan. Qiushufang (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

What specifically is the objection to the author/source's reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR is a legitimate reason for removal from Wikipedia. The source itself is also questionable as it contradicts another source and does not provide citations for any of its claims. Qiushufang (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

OR was not the reason given for removal or opening this section. You appear to be pivoting now that you can't support your claims that the source is unreliable... The source doesnt need to provide citations for its claims (Dawley is allowed to do original research, there is no requirement that sources show their sources) and when reliable sources contradict (which I don't actually think they do here) we cover both of them not choose a winner. You may think Dawley is wrong, but that doesn't really matter does it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

OR was not the reason given for removal or opening this section.

The beginning of this section begins with Content added by User:Horse Eye's Back contains original research from an argument piece by Dawley.

In my original edit, I stated in the edit summary that the article "does not mention specific rejection or preference for any country", which was part of the attached content: Some Taiwanese rejected specifically the idea that they be colonized by Japan, preferring Great Britain or France instead. That is original research. Moreover the source itself misrepresents the nature of the subject by presenting it as a another opinion from a separate party, attributed to the Taiwanese in this article. As I stated above this is likely a reference to the pro-Qing Republic of Formosa's attempt to forestall Japanese colonization by appealing to Western powers such as France or Britain. That's why the article prefaces this with the efforts of officials and elites to prevent Japanese takeover. This is supported by a quotation from another source above. I reiterated this and that the attribution to Taiwanese, part of the removed content, is not mentioned in the source. Tang Jingsong, the head of the RoF, was not from Taiwan and fled Taiwan after the Japanese takeover. So how could the appeal to Western powers as part of the RoF's political rhetoric be a Taiwanese opinion (neither mentioned in the source or other sources). Is this not original research?

The source also does not say that the Qing never considered Taiwan to be "essential imperial territory" but rather than it was viewed as less important than Liaodong, which was. The distinction is minute but nonetheless exists. This is also OR.

To say that OR was not the reason given for removal or opening this section would be incorrect. It would be inaccurate to say it was the only reason. Given Dawley's mis-attribution, contradiction, lack of citations, and the argumentative opinion nature of the article, that is grounds for removal unless more reliable sources are provided. Qiushufang (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thats not OR... Thats you disagreeing with reasonable intepretations of the source because you disagree with the source. What is your source that the article misrepresents the nature of the subject? For a statement like that you would need a RS (especially as the author is living and you've casting asperions on them), not just your own opinion. And it can't just be another source which contradicts Dawley, it actually needs to specifically say that Dawley is wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you now not moving the goalpost? You said I did not open this section or originally remove the content due to OR. I have proven that wrong. Now you are saying it is not OR and therefore I'm wrong. A source deemed reliable does not mean they are right, and a reasonable judgement would be that a non-academic source without any citations is at least less reliable than one that is academic with citations in a dedicated monograph that is on the relevant subject. When the attached content is an "interpretation" of content which does not state something, again the attribution to Taiwanese people in their preference for Britain or France or that Taiwan was not essential imperial territory, and likely misattribution by the original source, it is not unreasonable at all to remove it. You seem to be under the impression that all sources deemed RS cannot come under scrutiny. Qiushufang (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would it matter whether they're right or not? Some Taiwanese rejected specifically the idea that they be colonized by Japan, preferring Great Britain or France instead. does seem to be a decent summary of some attempted to avoid colonization only by Japan and were amenable to annexation by Britain or France instead with no major departures in fact, you disagree with the author but they do actually say it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, some is not "Taiwanese" and the sentence is prefaced with civil officials and elites in Taiwan, which is not the same thing as Taiwanese people. I've already pointed out that the statement is not from a Taiwanese person, but someone born on mainland China and died in mainland China. Qiushufang (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

So you would accept "Some civil officials and elites in Taiwan rejected specifically the idea that they be colonized by Japan, preferring Great Britain or France instead." or something like that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It was part of the RoF's efforts to prevent Japanese takeover by appealing to Western intervention. Attributing it to Tang Jingsong, as Rubinstein does, and placing it within the context of their efforts, would make it more suitable for inclusion imo. Qiushufang (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What about Dawley is not suitable for inclusion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Dawley can be cited as well but there's nothing in there for this statement that isn't covered more directly by Rubinstein with better attribution. Qiushufang (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes the attribution better? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It specifies who the source is and provides additional context in which it was made. Qiushufang (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

How do we know that Tang Jingsong is Dawley's source? They seem to be using the plural which would seem to preculude Tang as a sole source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't know because Dawley doesn't cite anything. If you can find who these other sources are that would be great. Otherwise, the academic source with attribution and citation should take precedence over the one making a nearly identical statement without any of the above. Qiushufang (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Dawley doesn't need to cite anything, they are a subject matter expert as wikipedia understands that term to mean. It doesn't take precedence, Dawley is also an academic. We weight them more or less equally in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

They are not of equal weight. A generic statement that provides less info than one which is specific and better sourced is more useful and less prone to error than one which is not. Two RS does not make any info provided by each source of equal value, otherwise wikipedia would be filled with redundancy where multiple sources making minutely different statements are repeated multiple times. For the purpose of wikipedia, adding "some" people does not provide anything useful to the reader. Who are these some people? What are their names? If the source is academic then it should be possible to locate it in an academic publication such as a journal or monograph, not just one written by someone who is an academic. Even if they were weighted equally, the statement by Rubinstein would still be the preferred one, because it already covers the who and why of the subject. Dawley does not provide any of these in greater detail. Supposing that the "some" that Dawley is referring to are multiple others, then who are they? Simply saying "some" would warrant clarity anyways. Qiushufang (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)