Talk:Taiwan under Japanese rule

message: 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).
: Keep in mind that this is a translation from the Chinese Wikipedia. Some of the content may have to be re-adjusted.
: For the showcase part, I have modified the sentence to this: Taiwan thus served as a showcase for Japan's propaganda on the colonial efforts throughout Asia, as displayed during the 1935 Taiwan Exposition.
: For the "Use of Japanese language was rewarded" part, I think you did not read it very well. The Japanese colonial government in Taiwan rewarded the use of Japanese language, it's a historical fact, and the sentence is perfectly fine. 
: For the "Three Bad Habits" part, the Japanese colonial government did enforce several policies that relates to it. Please read on.
: The Chinese government at the time did its own thing (See New Life Movement), and it's completely unrelated. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of voice and personal opinions

message: Working to translate stuff from the zh version. -Loren 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling it a day, will pick up translating the rest in a bit. -Loren 02:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Administrative divisions 

message: 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 agree. There needs to be more information written about the peasants, who made up the vast majority of Taiwanese people at the time and surprisingly got little attention in this article. More needs to be written about Japanese agricultural policy that benefited big landowners like the Koo family and screwed over tenant farmers. Also, we need to expand opposition groups that were trying to gain Taiwanese autonomy like the Taiwan Cultural Association and the birthing ground for later Taiwanese self-determination. Blueshirts 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Details of the bad things as well?

message: Give English meaning and characters for "Takasago Hei." Jidanni 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Takasago Hei." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legacy Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Japanese colonists? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Some theorists believe that Taiwan was converted to Japanese proper at some point during early 1945. But, if this is true, then this still wouldn't mean much, since Japan lost control of Taiwan towards the end of 1945, with the conclusion of World War II. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonial status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 November 2011 
;What should I do?
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.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Motojiro Akashi (low res).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wushe armed resistance 

message: 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)
replies: text: Could you please list the articles which indicate that Taiwan had been a sovereign territory of China from 1945–1949? That indication is not neutral and should be modified because there are sources holding a different view. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the article Republic of China (1912–1949) indicates Taiwan as the sovereign territory of China in the infobox. There is a map with "territories of the ROC" and regions such as Tibet and Mongolia are indicated in light green whereas Taiwan is indicated in dark green, just like China proper. In my opinion, Taiwan should also be indicated in light green, not dark green, indicating a claim (and occupation) rather than sovereignty... But I don't know how to produce such a map. Furthermore, various ROC-centric and/or KMT-centric articles refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan, Republic of China". I can't specify any at the moment, though. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession of States 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrender Date 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Allies of World War II decided that Taiwan be placed under the control of the ROC. The ROC claims that Taiwan "retroceded" when it controlled Taiwan; some claims that the control is just a military occupation, responsible to the whole body of the Allies, and is not a cession. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

text: The term "handed over" is ambiguous. It does not specifically indicate that a transfer of sovereignty has taken place. Some "handovers" are permanent, whereas others are temporary. The ROC argues that Taiwan was permanently handed over to the ROC, whereas sources that support the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan argue that Taiwan was only temporarily handed over to the ROC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrocession Day 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Truku sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "State of Takasago" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

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

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: Isn't Gaichi considered to be an offensive term? The distinction between naichi and gaichi was a racial one, no? WP:RS use colony, they don't seem to have legal or equivocality (please explain that one) issues with using it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political status during Japanese rule