Talk:Taiwan under Japanese rule
Page contents not supported in other languages.
East Asia (defunct) | ||||
|
Japan: History Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
Former countries | ||||
|
I believe it is quite questionable to define Taiwan as "colony" of Japan, although this term was so often used unofficially. Imperial Japanese Government declined to use this term several times - ministers formally rejected to use this word in Parliament. This is because: 1. "colony" is not a term to describe legal status. It is a term from economy., 2. They regarded Taiwan as "territory". So Taiwan did not have "Crown Colony" or "Dominion" status to Japan. The point was to what extent the codes of Imperial Japanese Constitution could be enforced.
I had lived in Taiwan for 8 years. Even though I'm not 100% Taiwanese, I'm seriously insulted by this article's tone of voice and the author's personal opinions.
First of all, it is ridiculous to say that the Japanese showcased Taiwan. Who did they showcase Taiwan to? I read the article about Korea under Japanese rule. The only difference I feel about these two is that there is no monarch in Taiwan for the Japanese to murder, because Taiwan was not a country. I don't think that can make Japanese rule in Taiwan better than Korea. That's just someone' personal opinions.
Second, "Use of Japanese language was rewarded" to Taiwan? How gross is that?
Third, "Three Bad Habits" also gradually disappeared in mainland China during the same period. Should the Japanese be credited by such development?
I didn't read the whole article in detail. There may be more inappropriate words and sentences in the article. But I think these things should be set straight.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poloial (talk • contribs).
Working to translate stuff from the zh version. -Loren 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of things to do:
I finished translating the Culture section..
The article is seemingly complete. Should someone submit it so it can be rated? --AQu01rius 23:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Filled in most of the red links. For citations, I will try to find more as I only included what is provided in the Chinese article. --AQu01rius 01:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you find information about how baseball was brought to Taiwan and about the baseball teams?--Jerrypp772000 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Taihoku prefecture included the modern districts of Taipei City, Taipei County, Yilan County, Keelung City the area cannot just have been 428.7 square km. Maybe a digit is missing here. Rolf-Peter Wille 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing from the softness of this piece that it was written from someone in Japan or perhaps edited by them. I lived in Taiwan as well, and what I picked up from talking to some older Taiwanese people and from newspapers there were quite a few things we would classify now as "war crimes" happening by the hands of the Japanese dictators. Although I was unaware of all of the economic and educational reforms that the Japanese instituted, that doesn't mean all the bad things need to be glossed over or omitted completely, if we go to the Hitler page you aren't going to see "concentration camps" omitted. They made reference to "biological submission" I believe was the term, by that the author means, they raped the aborigines to produce Japanese babies, just like the British did with their "undesirables." I don't think the actual meaning should be so buried, nor should it be blatant, it needs to be objective. This needs to be written at a college level or above, not as a 7th grade social studies report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.255.34 (talk • contribs)
I AM APPALLED THAT THIS HAS NO SECTION SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING THE JAPANESE USE OF COMFORT WOMEN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.113.115.5 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give English meaning and characters for "Takasago Hei." Jidanni 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
period between 1895 and 1945 during which Taiwan was a Japanese colony.
What was Taiwan's legal status after 1937? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan was sovereign Japanese territory until April 28, 1952, when Japan's renunciation of its territorial sovereignty became effective. I found a chart which illustrates this -- See Chart #4 on this webpage http://www.taiwanbasic.com/civil/tmodhiae.htm The United States is the principal occupying power, and the ROC is only a subordinate occupying power under USMG. 61.230.92.236 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to include a legacy section talking about the long-term effects of the Japanese rule. Things like the education and infrastructure that helped with later economic growth and changes to Taiwanese culture that survive to today would be useful to know.Readin (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many were there? How many were deported after the war? How they integrated with the locals, intermarriage, etc?Rocha189.102.98.157 (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is deeply biased and insulting. The article failed to (deliberately?) mention the reality of what it was really like under the brutal Japanese rule, the harsh living condition of most people (the peasants who were living on the brink of starvation), comfort women, forced labour and slave, cultural genocide, the massacre and extermination of Taiwanese aborigines, and Japan's exploitation of Taiwan's natural resources.
To the authors of this article, if you are Taiwanese than ask your grand parents about what that period really was like. Taiwanese were treated no better if not worst than Japan's treatment of Koreans during the same period. This article gives me the impression that it is tring to beautify and justify Japan's rule. To that extent it makes a ridiculous connection between baseball, the very popluar sport now in Taiwan, with Japan's colonial rule. Is this relevant? It sounds like propaganda and populism. I am amazed that article as inaccurate and biased as this is allowed to be on Wikipedia, no one here seems to verify the contents? This is like having an article on Nazi without any mention of genocide on Jewish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.2.51 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are coming from a Japanese point of view. There were no merits in show casing Taiwan to the world at that time, that was just a propaganda to the local uneducated mass of Taiwan, indoctrinating them how great Japan's rule was, I doubt Japan cared much about how Koreans felt their rule was in Taiwan when they launched the invasion against Korea. Taiwan was no better treated than Japan's rule of Korea, Philipine ...
"As for the grandparents, they say that the Japanese were much better than the Chinese who came later. The Japanese soldiers were bound by laws and were polite."
Could you please quote me some non-Japanese unbiased sources regarding "The Japanese soldiers were bound by laws and were polite." ??? The stories I have heard were Taiwanese people could randomly be beaten or executed on the street by Japanese soldiers for reasons including not showing enough respect, not bowing to perfect 90 degrees, and to the soldiers liking. This created a sense of low crime rate and good public order as those who didn't obey were tortured, decapitated or hanged. There were many unrecorded instances of lynch, rape, girls forced to become army prostitutes, and large number of nameless mass graves through out Taiwan.
My understanding is that Japan polarized Taiwanese into two social classes. A group of Japanese educated Taiwanese elite that benefitted from Japanese and considered themselves to be sub-Japanese and were very loyal to their masters, lords and the massive majority who were poor, uneducated and often subjected to brutality, labour and discrimination from both Japanese and Taiwanese elites.
This article glorifies Japan's rule of Taiwan, downplays the atrocities and Taiwanese casualities, outlines in a way the accomplishments of this oppressive rule, which is really disturbing to me. The infrastructures in Taiwan built by Japan was for the sole purpose of exploiting much of Taiwan's natural resources, mineral and precious primaeval forests. These resources along with much more pillaged from all over Asia went into Japan's economy and latter supported their Pacific war efforts. Reading this article I also find the tone very dubious.
I am no historian, my sources are what I have heard from people while growing up in Taiwan, thats perhaps why this article is insulting to me. 122.57.53.130 (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Chinese version is a featured article, perhaps we should translate and merge with this article? T-1000 (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please quote me some non-Japanese unbiased sources regarding "The Japanese soldiers were bound by laws and were polite." ??? No, I can't, which is why it isn't mentioned in the article. The stories I have heard were Taiwanese people could randomly be beaten or executed on the street by Japanese soldiers for reasons including not showing enough respect, not bowing to perfect 90 degrees, and to the soldiers liking. If you have some non-Chinese unbiased sources for that we can put it in the article (remember that just as the Japanese had motivation to say good things about their rule, the Chinese who followed had motivation to say bad things about the Japanese - both as a way to claim the Chinese were better and also out of hatred for the Japanese because of what the Japanese had done in China).
This created a sense of low crime rate and good public order... That appears to be one matter on which we've both heard the same story, but we still need a source. Readin (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add some opinions since no one bought it up, from talking to the older folks, some of them who were anti-Japanese Taiwanese peasants and some of them pro-Japanese Taiwanese "elites", it seems quite a few individual members of the Japanese police, military, or para-military had the ability to carry out wanton violence without repercussion, so long as the violence does not draw blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.38.62.88 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was Taiwan a colony throughout its time under Japanese rule? Was it ever converted into part of Japanese proper? Karota (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source for the information to "Population"? Is there a way to access that census data? --147.142.222.129 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Some of the population info in this article seems questionable. In this sentence from the "Aborigines" section, I removed the statements in the parentheses giving percentages: "According to the 1905 census, the aboriginal population included 450,000+ plains aborigines (1.53% of the total Taiwan population), almost completely assimilated into Han Chinese society, and 300,000+ mountain aborigines (1.2% of the total population)." If 450,000 = 1.53%, the total population in 1905 would have been over 29 million, which is well over the population of Taiwan today. The second figure is also impossible, putting the population at over 25 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terriblefish (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An image used in this article, File:Motojiro Akashi (low res).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
I removed the "...which resulted in the massacre of Atayal tribespeople" from "...with the notable exception of the Wushe Incident in 1930 which resulted in the massacre of Atayal tribespeople" because it was clearly biased favoring one group over the other. The sentence could just as easily and just as accurately read "which resulted from the massacre by Atayal tribespeople" as the initial violent action was the massecre of Japanese women and children at an athletic event. Readin (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the previous administration to Republic of Formosa. The infobox parameters simply ask for the previous entity, we are not supposed to decide whether an entity was legitimate or not. Source also show that Japan ultimately defeated the Republic of Formosa and started its rule in Taiwan. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apparently the editor who changed it is now edit warring to keep it. I will post on WT:MILHIST for opinions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted on MILHIST. If we go by {{History of Taiwan}}
, it clearly show Republic of Formosa as the preceding entity in the chronological order. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{History of Taiwan}}
does not mean it has ever ruled Taiwan. Also, that information can be disputed. Let us discuss this matter at the template's talk page or use the outcome of this discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]Just because the polity has ever existed on Taiwan does not mean it has ever ruled Taiwan.That's your opinion. Sources in the article clearly show that the Republic of Formosa had soldiers and it actually resisted the invasion, and it was in place for a few months. If you are saying that it did not "rule" Taiwan, then I don't know what to say.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the polity has ever existed on Taiwan does not mean it has ever ruled Taiwan.conforms well to policy WP:NOR: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources". On the contrary, the claim which asserts that the polity has ever "ruled" Taiwan has gone beyond what is expressed in sources (the polity has ever existed).
It's worth pointing out that the situation here is similar to that of the Philippines under the United States, and the infobox used here does include the unrecognized First Philippine Republic as a predecessor. I see no problem with doing the same here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through quite a bit of sources and I guess this was what happened
Looking at the situation, I think it would be fair to mention both flags. The Japanese legitimately took Taiwan from Qing (so in a way they are the predecessor). But the Republic of Formosa established a rebel parallel government, whom the Japanese had to fight. And this, they were a predecessor as well. Pinging Matt Smith to have a look. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that the page Empire of Japan claims that the Empire of Japan was succeeded only by Occupied Japan and nothing else. I initially believed this to be incorrect, so I had a look at the image being used in the page "Empire of Japan", and it seems that the image considers both Japanese Taiwan and Japanese Korea to have been integral parts of Japan, no different from how East Prussia was part of Nazi Germany before it was split between Poland and the Soviet Union post-World War II, for example. See, I was expecting the article to claim that the Empire of Japan was succeeded by Occupied Japan, Occupied Korea, and Occupied Taiwan, but if the latter two regions were considered parts of Japan at the time, then this means that they were simply parts of Occupied Japan. Obviously, this theory contradicts the Republic of China's belief that Taiwan was "retroceded" to China in 1945. And, in fact, in most articles relating to the Republic of China on Wikipedia, Taiwan is indicated as having been a sovereign territory of China from 1945–1949. So, if Occupied Japan really did include Occupied Taiwan, then doesn't this mean that Japanese Taiwan was actually succeeded by Occupied Japan, rather than by the Republic of China? In this particular article, I have already made a point of indicating Japanese Taiwan's immediate successor post-WWII as "Taiwan under ROC rule". Technically, this is correct, since Taiwan was under ROC rule post-WWII. And, in fact, such a description is probably already contrary to the Republic of China's national agenda, since it believes that Taiwan was immediately retroceded to Chinese sovereignty post-WWII, and hence would rather describe the successor state to Japanese Taiwan as "Republic of China", and would probably oppose any insinuation that Taiwan was being occupied by the Republic of China post-WWII. However, I think the more accurate political status of Taiwan post-WWII was actually "Occupied Japan". So, Japanese Taiwan was preceded by Taiwan, Qing dynasty and the Republic of Formosa, was succeeded by Occupied Japan, with the Republic of China being the primary occupier alongside the United States of America, and was then subsequently succeeded by "Taiwan", a de facto independent state whose sovereignty is heavily disputed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has two dates of the formal surrender - 14 August 1945 and 25 October 1945. Can someone with more facts at hand please look at this?Ash (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was Taiwan handed over to the Republic of China or not? That article says that the idea of the "Retrocession Day" is in dispute. Kaizena (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found that source labeled under the number 41 taken off Facebook. I don't know if the original editor is here so I didn't want to just take it off without not letting anyone know.
In addition, source 40 seems to be citing from a youtube video of a news report from Taiwan. I have several concerns regarding source 40 since Taiwan media is notoriously known for twisting the words of who they talk to and twisting their words, with me having experience of being on one of the news media and having my words only partially reported. Not saying that this source is bad, but just looking to see if anyone can say that this news source is valid. All other sources seem fine. グレーイト (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect State of Takasago. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 24#State of Takasago until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Konno Yumeto 11:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 19:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edits made by me which used "Gaichi" instead of a vague term "colony", as the term was a contemporary legal name for Japanese dependencies under the Meiji constitution. In Japanese-language Wikipedia, it owns a complete topic shown as following link [1]. If there is already a specific and precise term in existence by describing the status of the territory, how come the article has to use a vague term which has no legal ground and also contains equivocality in its meaning? 123.192.219.198 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To be consistent like History of Taiwan (1945–present) and other periods of other countries, do you support or oppose the change? Silence of Lambs (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]