Talk:Taiwan under Qing rule

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First "Chinese" occupation of Taiwan 

message: "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)
replies: text: * Quote given & sourced in Taiwanese aborigines in the Qing Rule section. --Ling.Nut 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "an attempted uprising every three years and a revolt every five years." 

message: "more than a hundred rebellions when Qing ruled"
Anyone can find a source to this statement? Redcloud822 05:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Quote given & sourced in Taiwanese aborigines in the Qing Rule section. In a footnote... --Ling.Nut 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "more than a hundred rebellions"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  THe taiwanese people rejected shimonseki treaty 

message: ===Republic of Taiwan (1895), Declaration of Independence===
The declaration, in the original Chinese, reads as follows:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  readin just go' owned 

message: The declaration, in the original Chinese, reads as follows:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Republic of Taiwan (1895)]], Declaration of Independence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O|Third opinion]] 

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Moved the page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures