Talk:February 28 incident/Archive 1

message: Why isn't this page named "228 Incident"?  Several pages on Taiwan link to that page.
Acegikmo1 21:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: moved --Jiang 07:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: I am curious how relevant Liu Ming-Chuan has to do with 228 incident.:) Mababa 04:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Liu Ming-Chuan

message: Wow. This article is biased both in its description of the Japanese occupation and its omission of the Rebel led massacres of mainland (and even Taiwanese) civilians. This will take some revisions to make more informative and accurate.
Xuanwu 19:56, 28 Feb 2005 (Taipei Standard Time)
:If you see something you believe is incorrect, feel free to correct it. -- Loren 17:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan took Taiwan from China by force. So recovery of Taiwan by China is both proper and rightful. Don't play that broken record of unspecified receivership again.Zymogen 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan did not specify a receiving country, hence the problems across the straight today. It doesn't matter what your biased opinion on the matter is, Zymogen, facts are facts. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, either by force or not, Japan took Taiwan from the Qing Empire, not China.--Jerry 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: The fact that the KMT attempted to whitewash 228 was already covered in the Legacy section and the original intro. The article itself already covered the purging of Taiwanese elites. There is no point including such a large chunk of borderline POV information in the intro. The reader can go through the description of 228 in the article and decide for him/herself why the KMT decided to repress knowledge of 228. --Loren 04:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits regarding KMT whitewashing

message: "Rebels would often check to see if the individual in question could speak Taiwanese or Hakka as a means of determining their identity. Japanese was used for a final double check as well as the Japanese National Anthem. Persons who failed the above were identified as mainlanders and were often beaten or killed."
My concern is - there were plenty of "mainlanders" from Fujian who spoke minnan dilects, Taiwanese is essentially minnan dilect with elements of Japanese influence. Wouldn't it have been easier and more accurate to ask the individual to speak mandarin chinese and verify the accent? Plenty of "mainlanders" speak minnan and there were "mainlanders" who were hakka.
BlindingCranium
: I doubt that most Taiwanese at the time were proficient enough in Mandarin to speak it, much less identify regional accents. Also keep in mind that even with Min-nan several regional accents exist. -Loren 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query on how identity was determined 

message: Communism has long existed in Taiwan for a long time before anti-Communism tide (anti-Communism McCathyism) hit Taiwanese society. Since 1927, Chinese Communist Party has had a branch in Taiwan and at that time, the Taiwanese female leader of Chinese Communist Party "Xie Xue-Hong"(谢雪红) was the main figure to resist to Japanese occupation and later pro-USA KMT government. During the 228 incident in Taiwan in 1946, the leader of pro-USA KMT government "Chiang Kai-Shek" ordered army to massacre communists, many taiwanese communists fled to mainland(China). Many people of them are now still main figures of Chinese Communist Party
After 228 incident,the Taiwan society extremely has been disappointed to the Kuomintang authority, a part has implanted the Taiwan independence mood, but majority transferred to support the Chinese Communist Party,and the red influence rapidly inflated in Taiwan. On the other hand, Chinese Communist Party army successively won in the mainland, various party politics unit sends the person to Taiwan. Until 1949, Taiwan has nearly proliferated the Chinese Communist Party members from all governmental agencies, military units, transportation units, communication, electric power to the intellectuals of institutions. This gave advantageous political context that Taiwan will have been already "liberation" in namely by Chinese People's Liberation Army. 
The reactionary reign of terror implemented white terror(anti-Communism and massacre) in 1950s
However in 1950 Korean War erupted, US ship drove into Taiwan strait, Pro-USA KMT authority refights the steady footsteps, and the strategic circumstance appears the basic transition. KMT rallies the sentiment to govern the strength and the implementation of white terror policy and leftists were massacred. Many underground party members encounter were executed by shooting, including Guo Xiu-cong, Li Cangjiang,who knew Li Deng-Hui very much(Note: Li Deng-hui, known as Lee Teng-hui, once a member of Chinese Communist Party, but he betrayed the party and his comrades to KMT, later he betrayed KMT to pro-independence mobs. He was criticized as being a political opportunist by many taiwanese). Recent years , the name lists file of persons who were shot has flowed out from the Taiwan Security Bureau , it is surprising to behold, representing the 50's brutall(bloody) years which red strengths were eradicated by KMT forces, and this also was "bandit's spy on nearby your body" the political propaganda at that time background, Taiwan entered the age which found it unbearable to recall the cruelly wither 
Note: Xie Xue-Hong(谢雪红), born in Zhang-Hua county, Taiwan province. She was the leader of Taiwan province branch of the Chinese Communist Party during Japanese occupation. After 228 incident, she fled to China and later became congresswoman of National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China
Picture below: Taiwanese heroine Xie Xue-Hong(谢雪红) ,who was born in Taiwan and was the leader of Taiwan province branch of the Chinese Communist Party severely condemned USA attempts to divide Taiwan from China in 1949
[]
: Here's a contemporaneous news article (no picture) regarding the same Ms Xie: 
: --Mliu92 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism in Taiwan

message: It's such a strange name - where does it come from? 62.141.24.89 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feb-28. Shawnc 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  228? 

message: There was a short edit war over the sentence "Most Taiwanese believed that Chiang Kai-shek ordered his troops to carry out the crackdown." and the use of the term "violently".  Regarding the sentence, if it can be supported with poll results or something like that it should probably be in the article, but in stead of where it was it should be moved to the "legacy" section as it affects how people view Taiwan's history and relationship to ROC.
Regarding the word "violently", given that people were intentionally killed, I think "violently" is correct and belongs.  Certainly by this definition violently 3: caused by force : not natural <a violent death>, the term is used correctly and doesn't need to be removed.  I also think it belongs because without it provides a better understanding of what the article is about. 
But what about the of "quickly" in the same sentence?  Didn't the incident continue for several weeks?  That doesn't seem "quick" to me.Readin (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to remove "quickly" from the sentence. Other than that, the statement is not POV.--Jerrch 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Taiwanese believed that Chiang Kai-shek ordered his troops to carry out the crackdown.  

message: I think the article could use some re-structuring; for example: the introduction is way too long.
--K kc chan (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think the last paragraph can be moved to the Legacy section.--Jerrch 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: I removed these sentences for acouple reasons.
On both sides there were kind people. Some Taiwanese helped to hide the mainlanders who fled the attacks by the Taiwanese rebels who were in control of the island. Some even protected the mainlanders. Unfortunately, many of these Taiwanese were also killed by the rebels for helping out the mainlanders. During the violence many unlawful elements also merged with those protesting legitimate political demands.
First, they have no citation.  Second, it says there were kind people on both sides, but then only describes kind people among the Taiwanese.  Third, when mentioning the Taiwanese it doesn't even portray them as a "side", instead separating using "rebels" to distinguish those on a side from Taiwanese who were kind.  In short, if the first sentence about kind people on both sides is true, then the rest of the sentences violate NPOV.  It is unclear however whether the first sentence is true because no citation is provided. Readin (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  kind people 

message: I removed this section because it was completely uncited and it wasn't clear to me what it added to the article.  Also its NPOV has been questioned on this talk page in that it calls Li Ao a historian based on the fact that Wikipedia calls him a historian.  However, the article on Li Ao provides no citation for calling him a historian.  And the "List of Historians" has him listed as a historian of China, not of Taiwan.   The 2-28 You Don't Know is mentioned, but no link or quotes are provided for verification.  If they were, I would check to see if he actually uses the term "Taiwanese separatists" and if so put them in quotes.  To use them unquoted is misleading because according to the citation of  (Subscription required), it is clear that the Chinese were considered an "occupation army" and it seems Taiwanese didn't identify with "Chinese" (article says "Formosans use the adjective "Chinese" as a synonym for inefficiency and confusion." and quotes Taiwanese as saying "You were kind to the Japanese, you dropped the atom on them. You dropped the Chinese on us".)
Points of contention
* According to The 2-28 You Don't Know, by Li Ao (a pro-reunification politician, historian, and writer), Taiwanese separatists and Japanese expatriates played a role in the rebellion, an observation made by several other Chinese historians of the time upon whose work Li Ao's record is based. This is contradicted by the account given by George H. Kerr who was in Taiwan at the time as a US Foreign Service officer. Kerr mentions that nearly all of the Japanese living or stationed in Taiwan at the end of WWII had been repatriated by March 1946. 
* Kerr also mentions that the goals among the insurgents were varied and not necessarily linked to Taiwan independence. For example, the Settlement Committee issued statements demanding greater autonomy within the ROC, but stopped short of independence. Li Ao also notes the heterogeneous nature of the insurgents. He writes that the separatist subset was noteworthy for those members who used violence in the pursuit of their political goals.
* The total number of victims is still in dispute.  The official estimate is somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 killed.
Some say that as many as 30,000 Taiwanese died during the backlash. Others claim, especially those in the pan-Blue political camp in Taiwan, that the majority of those killed were innocent civilians from the mainland. The number of victims is still being researched. The government has recently declassified sensitive material that is aiding the investigation.
I'm not sure who Kerr is but if he is reliable and citations are provided his data should be in regular section, not in "points of contention".
Readin (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited contention 

message: "The number "228" refers to the day of the massacre"  I think every source I've ever read on 228 says the incident lasted several weeks.  The statement that it was only one day is uncited.  Anyone have a good source to day how long the "228 Incident" lasted?  I'm tempted to change the statement to read "The number "228" refers to the day the massacre began." Readin (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The massacre lasted for months.--Jerrch 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massecre was one day? 

message: Hi, I was wondering what the CCP had/has to say about the events. I suppose they did comment on the issue once or twice in the past? I think it could, for example, be interesting to know if the CCP's evaluation of the events has changed in recent years or not. Yaan (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should CCP's POV be less relevant than any other nations? Are you sure that event happened in Taiwan/Formosa under any other nation's control at that moment, except CCP? Actually, Kerr's book confirmed that the CCP had involved the incident. Your position is not NPOV. --90.136.147.184 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCP POV? 

message: "Subsequently, Taiwanese perceptions of the Japanese occupation during the colonial era were significantly more favorable than perceptions in other parts of East Asia"
This needs a citation, otherwise it should be removed for P.O.V. reasons.
:While we generally are supposed to require citations, the rule is honored as often in the breach as in the application.  In this case why do you think POV is a problem? Readin (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Citation

message: The issue of pro-Japanese involvement appears to be from this source, but without the all important qualifier.
:On March 19th or 20th 1947, the Formosan Provincial Government newspaper "Hsin Sheng" published an editorial entitled, "Who are the Criminals", as follows:
::(1) Industrialists who co-operated with Japan still dream that Formosa should go back to Japan so that they could regain prosperity under Japanese rule. But the present Government is not going to allow middle-men to make profits. The profits should be for the country. The industrialists therefore agitated the young people to rebel against the government.
Qualifier: “To anyone not familiar with the background, and unaware of the real facts the Government statements might appear reasonable enough, but UNRRA officials had long learned to take Chinese official publications with several grains of salt. Some had found that the opposite to the published statements was frequently more correct.”
Source: Shackleton, Allan J., Formosa Calling: An Eyewitness Account of the February 28th, 1947 Incident, Taiwan Publishing Co (Taipei: 1998), Chapter XI (http://homepage.usask.ca/~llr130/taiwanlibrary/formosacalling/formosaframes.htm) DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: pro-Japanese involvement

message: the "native taiwanese" people are actually descended from chinese who moved to taiwan from fujian and guangdong provinces from china. so whether or not they could be technically "anti-themselves" cpi;d be disputed, as they are descended from chinese.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.158 (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter who the Taiwanese descended from, they can (and frequently do) perceive themselves as different from the Chinese. Certainly the US is mainly inhabited by people descended from Europeans, but they prefer to view themselves as being American. There are some Americans who have anti-European feelings (and vice versa obviously). So using "anti-Chinese" in the article is readily understandable and follows usual language conventions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.166.35 (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of "anti chinese"