Talk:George H. Kerr

message: Well, I was about to creat the page on Formosa Betrayed. However, I did it in an easy way: copy and paste without major modification. Therefore I was noted that entry was infringe of the copyright regulation. That's the reason I put an extralink. It's your call to put an link here or restart the page. I do not know how long usually it takes to have the old entry deleted and start over again.L&m3d 01:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start a new version on the temp page and that will be moved once the copyvio is deleted. --Jiang 05:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: link to Formosa Betrayed

message: :In general, his works pertaining to Taiwan and China are not considered viable historical records, but rather well-written political science essays.
Formosa Betrayed is still a well cited historical record. I would like to see where this statement is based from. --Mababa 02:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I changed it to simply labeling the book as an influential political science book. A book that makes "sharp rebukes" (and it does; I grabbed the PDF off a link) can hardly be classified as a history book. Political science is a much broader and more accurate description of what that particular volume is. And as my history professor liked to point out, poly sci books are not viable historical texts, generally because the heavy amounts of bias can often skew what data is presented. This is similar to how, even though the New York Times is a respected newspaper, you wouldn't cite their editorial page for factual content. This isn't a put down of Kerr, merely an addition to clarify where he stands in terms of academic classification using the criteria of historians. Xuanwu 23:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Classifying it as "political science," however, is more informative. Specifying the genre is not a violation of neutrality. Said classfication does not contradict Kerr's own statement of purpose and, again, agrees with the wording already present in the article. Historical texts, as a rule, do not present "sharp rebukes." If you want a specific list of some Sinologists who would not consider this book a viable primary source, I can get in touch with some other historians I have worked with as well as get their impressions. I've already presented my own impressions from working in the field, but if you want me to bring in others, I can understand. However, I don't think a list of people who say this book is a work of political science is necessary, since knowing what the intent of the novel and its content should be sufficient to understand its proper classification. And, as I said, specifying the genre of a book is not a POV so long as there is a clear logical basis for said classification that is generally agreed upon by others with authority in the subject. Xuanwu 21:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: Until the death of Chiang, the mainland government tacitly and sometimes even actively supported the Taiwan autonomy and, in its extreme versions, Taiwan independence cause, since they shared with the Communists the common goal of opposing Kuomintang rule in Taiwan. The Taiwan Self-Rule Alliance is even today one of the registered political parties in the People's Republic of China. Is there a citation for Mao disliking Kerr for his anti-KMT views? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hated by Mao? 

message: The article currently says "Formosa Betrayed was one of the most influential books on Taiwan during the transition between the Japanese colonial rule and the Nationalist Chinese administration", but also states that the publication date was 1965. Could this be corrected or clarified? JWilly48519 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date conflict regarding publication of "Formosa Betrayed"? 

message: I've heard the story that the copyright for "Formosa Betrayed" was bought by the KMT and the book was suppressed after that until 1992. But I've never seen any evidence for the truth of that story--even the preface to the new edition of the book doesn't mention this. Can someone provide that evidence here? Tfns (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence that "Formosa Betrayed" copyright bought by KMT? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George H. Kerr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20081019060351/http://www.archives.pref.okinawa.jp/collection/2007/04/hgeorge-hkerr.html to http://www.archives.pref.okinawa.jp/collection/2007/04/hgeorge-hkerr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified