Talk:February 28 incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Naming

Why isn't this page named "228 Incident"? Several pages on Taiwan link to that page.

Acegikmo1 21:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

moved --Jiang 07:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be called 2/28 Massacre? Generally the people calling it the 2/28 incident tends to originate from those seeking to downplay it. Just like we don't call the current economic stimulus package the Rescue plan, as the Bush Administration coined it, and call it the bailout, we shouldn't call the 2/28 incident just an incident. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Liu Ming-Chuan

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

He had everything to do with the indisputable fact that Taiwan was under no one's but China's rule. Zymogen 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias

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)

- i believe the treaty releasing taiwan from japanese rule did not specify a recieving country.

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)

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)

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

however Republic of China is a successive state to Qing Dynasty, thus making Jerrypp772000's argument bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.0.142 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

and People Republic of China, took over Republic of China... hummmm... which makes your logic totally illogical... by the way... Qing took over Ming, and Ming took over Yuan.... so ... what does that means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.247.88 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV-ing

>>>>> 228 is indeed a sad incident occured 60 years ago and yet its fact has been distorted repeatedly for political purposes. Readers be aware. Hatred does not solve problems! The wise Heals, only the fool hates and revenges.

First of all, thanks to everyone who contributed to this article, 228 is still a highly contentious issue and the inclusion of more points of view can only be a positive thing. However I am concerned that with partisan politics being what it is, some of us may, consciously or not, inject our own POV. Therefore, I'd like to suggest making the following changes and would like some input before I make the modifications:

• Consolidate sections 3 & 4 into a single section, abandoning the timeline format which seems to take up excessive space. Major incidents can be written up as a series of bullets.

• To prevent injecting excessive partisanship into the article, perhaps redoing sections 1 & 2 and renaming section 2 to something a little less contentious (i.e. "Post WWII Taiwan"?)

• Perhaps adding a new section or subsection of "Legacy" to account for differing views of the incident, as well as points of contention.

• Seperate external links according to point of view.

Also, there are a few factual points that I'd like to get input on:

• From section 2:

After Japan's surrender in World War II, Nationalist rule began in October 1945. During the immediate postwar period, the Chinese Kuomintang (KMT) administration on Taiwan was perceived as repressive and corrupt, leading to local discontent.

Is "percieved" the best word to use here? It seems to connotate that the corruption which many allege was prevailent in the early years of ROC administration is disputed. I was under the impression from most of the reputable sources which I have read that rampant corruption in the pre-1949 ROC was rather general knowledge and not in dispute. Perhaps alleged would be better.

I think alleged would work.

"Perceived" works in the sense that the locals certainly viewed the government as corrupt (the fact that they were was certainly the cause). Though remember that the Japanese government before the KMT was also corrupt, but they were not viewed with as much negativity. So perceptions of the two governments played a hand in how the people reacted. "Alleged" is fine, though. Xuanwu 19:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Re: Li Ao

Without getting into a political debate here, how credible is Li Ao's account, especially in regards to "Taiwanese seperatists and Japanese expats" being behind the rebellion? There is very little mention of Japanese expats being behind the rebellion in the account given by George Kerr who was in Taiwan at the time, Kerr mentions that nearly all of the Japanese living or stationed in Taiwan at the end of WWII were repatriated by March 1946 (p. 124)

--Loren 05:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not an expert on 228. However, I did have run into one anti-Japanese sentimented article trying to make n claim that overseas Japanese had a role in 228. From what I have read, the link is weak. From my general impression on Li Ao, he generally makes claims with his wonderful imagination. Without details on his evidence, I have no confidence on the credibility of his books.

Language indeed was used to identify the identity of the passengers. However, unlike the description in the current article, the first choice is Taiwanese; if not capable of Taiwanese, then Hakka. Japanese was used for final double check. Also the national Anthem of the Japanese was another common test, interestingly. As for the question whether the Taiwanese local guards were brutal towards the mainlanders, I would like to see more evidence to support that. In general, I thought the local guards were students and peaceful. No burglar or theft occured. That's probably why the ROC military selectively targeted on people with student uniforms and killed them.

The term "separatist" make it sounds as if the insurgence was initiated by politically motivated people against Chinese regime. Whereas, the sovereignty of China over Taiwan arguabely does not exist from the very begining, this usage endorses the Chinese sovereignty. Thus, the term "separatist" is not neutral here, I think. Mababa 07:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Only two groups of people want to continue to stoke this fire of hatred: those who want to incite the gullibles into believing that they have an ax to grind, in order to further their own ulterior political motives; and those who are naive enough to be conned into believing they have a virtual ax to grind. Believe you me, the victims included not only Taiwanese but also mainlanders. But we all want to bury the hatchets. The DPP have been in power for close to eight years. Why don't they air the truth? Doesn't it make you wonder? Zymogen 16:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Control of Taiwan was given to China at the end of WWII. There were those who disagreed with this decision and wanted Taiwan to be its own nation. Those that wanted to remove the imposed Chinese control (i.e. the sovereignty of China) can be called "separatists." This does not endorse Chinese control of Taiwan, it's simply a word that accurately describes what some people were aiming for: separation of Taiwan from China politically. We could include this definition to avoid misinterpretation. Xuanwu 19:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that we should characterize all of the insurgents (for the lack of a better term) as seperatists. While there were undoubtably those who favored seperation from the ROC, there were also many (if not more) who simply favored a greater degree of autonomy within the ROC, which seems at least to be reflected in the statements issued by the Settlement Committee prior to the crackdown. Perhaps we should include a small segment discussing the various motives behind different groups in the uprising? (i.e. Autonomy within ROC, UN trusteeship, TI, 27 Brigade and communist influence... etc.)?--Loren 20:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Categorizing all Taiwan locals involved in the incident as separatists would be overgeneralizing. Thanks for pointing that out. Defining the different forces at work (those dissatisfied with the current administration, those who wanted to be part of Japan, those who wanted Taiwan independence, etc.) would be useful. Xuanwu 04:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People claiming the 228 incidents as acts of separatists should be advised to have a better understanding on the legal status of Taiwan. Though ROC was legally directed to recieve the Japanese surrender and establish occupation according to the General Order No. 1, this does not mean ROC has sovereignty over it; thus, this insurgence did not constitute separatistim in every aspect. Likewise, since US occupation in Iraq does not transfer sovereignty to US, the insurgences (caused by different motives) there was never called separatistic acts. Please understand the distinction between occupation and annexation. Taiwan is legally occupied by ROC. Taiwan legally is not part of ROC. If you want to argue this is POV, then one should be made aware of the fact that Taiwan was still legally part of Japan until 1952, otherwise Japan would not have to relinquish it in SFPT. If Taiwan is politically not part of ROC, how is it possible Taiwan to be politically part of China? The US is not politically part of PRC, would you call US politically part of China? Or perhaps you can call US officials separatists? Could you call the Iraq insurgence separatist's act as well?Mababa 01:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is different from Iraq in several ways, though. The first is that Taiwan has not had personal sovereignty. It's been a province of the mainland, a province of Japan, and then becomes a province of the ROC after WWII. Iraq had independent rule when the US came in; the US (claims to) intend to setup a new system of independent rule to replace the old one. Thus, the US is not taking away self-government from Iraq, just bringing about a change in the internal system. Taiwan has not had the same level of autonomy as Iraq. So when Japan surrendered Taiwan and the ROC occupied it, it was not the occupation of a soveriegn country (as in Iraq) but the transfer of land between two countries. The Spanish surrender of the Phillipines to the US after the Spanish-American War is similar in nature. After taking the Phillipines, it was politically part of the US until being allowed to become a sovereign nation later on. Before that, the Phillipines were a Spanish colony and not autonomous, so this was a transfer of land not an occupation of a sovereign nation. (Yes, it was sovereign before, but not during this particular event.)

Taiwan is a province of the ROC (the only province, but still a province). Even if international law debates the issue, the fact that Taiwan has been ruled as a province for the last 50+ years makes it a fact in application. Therefore, Taiwan IS politically part of the ROC. Your argument about the US and China is specious since both the PRC and US are sovereign nations, while Taiwan has never been sovereign. Remember that "sovereign" means self-governing. Taiwan's governing has been done by the Japanese and the ROC government, not by a self-established Taiwan government. Xuanwu 04:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the arguement is that the status of Taiwan was unresolved as it was turned over to the Allies as an occupied territory, with the ROC being the primary occuipier under an international trust (much like postwar Germany, Japan, and the colonies of those countries) rather then a permanent territorial concession (i.e. some part of eastern Germany now part of Poland whose name eludes me at the moment). At any rate, that's probably an issue for Legal status of Taiwan. --Loren 05:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these. rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force.[1]

International laws dictates that occupation is not a transfer of sovereignty. Please understand it. And, please do not invent international laws. You have equated the control with transfer of sovereignty. Transfer of sovereignty usually requires a peace treaty.[2] ROC does not have any treaty that transfer Taiwan sovereignty to ROC. By all means, labeling 228 insurgent as separatists is not only politically oriented but also legally incorrect.

The fact that Taiwan province was established did not conform to international law. That's an attempt of annexation without legall sovereignty transfer. Even ROC national assembly has not annexed Taiwan into ROC constitution up to today. 3/30/47, The New York Times also pointed out that Taiwan is not a part of China formalized by any international treaty.[3] Prescription does not work here. Moreover, the Taiwan province was established after the incident. Taiwan province is not a reason to call them separatist. Above all, you are logically fallacious by using events happened later to justify your label onto events happened earlier. If you care to skim thourgh the legal status of Taiwan or the reference I provided above, you may get some enlightment to help you understand this deal.Mababa 05:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Assuming you are correct (and I question whether you are, given your choice of language), then Taiwan would have been the property of Japan at the time. There was a peace treaty at the end of the 1895 Sino-japanese War where control of Taiwan was turned over, which would therefore fall under international law. Therefore, those insurgents who wanted Taiwan to stand alone would still be separatists since they'd be advocating separation from Japan (only in a legal sense, since Japan had abandoned the island by that point).Xuanwu 17:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have yet seen any documents suggesting the insurgence was targeting at Japanese Sovereignty. As a matter of fact, people wanted, loved and longed for Japanese sovereignty after the Chinese occupation. Your innovative labeling the insurgents as separatists which were against Japanese sovereignty is first time I have ever heard and I am afraid that argument is not tenable. :)Mababa 06:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Usually I am not this unkind to others on Wiki, but your condenscending tone, as well as your own unwillingness to think outside a narrow paradigm, has brought me to it. The dictionary (Webster) defines a separatist as, among other things, "One who advocates disjunction of a group from a larger group or political unit." I'll break this down so you can understand. Disjunction means to break a connection; was the KMT connected to Taiwan at the time? Yes. Legal or not, a definite political connection existed (i.e. the KMT was in charge). Was the KMT a larger political unit? At the time, yes, since they still occupied the mainland. Did the insurgents want to break Taiwan's existing connection with the KMT? Yes. Therefore, the insurgents were separatists. Xuanwu 17:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Separate from who? Taiwan was not part of China!!(see below) Not now either!Mababa 01:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And, therefore, your arguments involving Taiwan's legal status (or, basically, all your posts since the very beginning of the discussion) are irrelevant. I suggest consulting a dictionary so you know what the term in question actually means before launching into a pseudo-intellectual spiel that amounts to little more than mental masturbation. It would likely improve the quality of your contributions both to Wiki and to the Internet as a whole. Good day, kind sir. :) Xuanwu 17:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just agree that "insurgents" is a more politically neutral term?--Loren 20:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to resort to vulgar rheotorics to prove one's point is neutral. The word separatist is not neutral nor accurate because it depicted the Taiwanese were already part of China, which is a POV commonly used by Xinhua news agent, and also that the Taiwanese were politically motivated against the Chinese regime at the very begining, which is not true either. The phrase, "separatists" is politically charged and thus not neutral.--Mababa 01:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think we should shorten the timeline and then streamline the first section on Japanese rule in Taiwan, as it is pretty much copied verbatim from the history of Taiwan article. Wareware 10:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll do that. --Loren 20:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Li Ao studied Taiwan history during his time of imprisonment under Chiang Kai-shek's White Terror campaign. The professors I study with generally consider him a reputable historian. The main point of balance is to illutsrate that those who protested against KMT rule were NOT entirely peaceful (though some were) and that mainlanders were killed alongside Taiwan locals. Just because the current political rhetoric focuses on what happened to the Taiwan locals doesn't mean they were saints in the matter (and indeed they weren't; both sides had blood on their hands). If you can find other sources, that would be good. Xuanwu 19:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not denying that many of those killed were also mainlanders, though we should also mention that the ROC military garrison stationed in Taiwan also engaged in some rather dubious (and some allege, indiscriminate) actions prior to the crackdown in early March. There are also records of several student groups and volunteer police forces going out of their way to protect mainlanders from the, shall we say, less friendly groups.--Loren 20:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- I want to have a say here about Taiwan sovereignty, if any of you do not like it, that's fine, freedom of speech. Ethnically Taiwanese are Chinese, which means people who live on Taiwan today are all from Mainland China except Taiwan aborigines. There is no question before China lost war to Japan in 1895 Taiwan was a province of dynasty China. After World War Two the Republican China led by KMT came to the island and established a provincial government. 228 incident happend in 1947 and Japanese government (neither did US/Allied forces in Japan and the Far East) did not come to rescue Taiwan people with the fact Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in 1952! 228 incident should be the dispute between the Republic of China and the Japanese government with nothing to do with people who live on Taiwan in 1947 (they did not have the political right of it, because Taiwan was in a role of Japanese territory with US/allied forces in which ROC a member of it) 228 incident is rather a incident between two sovereign countries on the one side is China and another Japan and Taiwan was still a part of Japan at that time! It would be cruel to say a winning country in a war could do a lot to a occupying land/territoty, for example, Japanese military did "a lot" to people in Nanking during World War Two. But the fact is that Taiwan was a part of Japan during World War Two and Taiwanese (people live on Taiwan) fought for Japan during World War Two against allied countries and Republic of China. In 228 incident ROC troops were killing Japanese not the so called "Taiwanese" at all. Until today, we have seen no request from the Japanese government about this issue. People who live on Taiwan from 1895 to 1952 are Japanese not Chinese excluding those from China to Taiwan after 1945.

If there were some people on Taiwan want independence it would be Taiwan independence from Japan! Then it would in the condition that Japan has the right to send it's troops to Taiwan to punish those who want independence from Japan during 228 incident. So 228 incident was more like fight for nothing and gained nothing in return for those who rioted, it's just ridiculous for those who suffered and died because they did nothing but attract threat to them and to Taiwan in the end at that time, legally speaking.

In fact, as far as I know, KMT corruption and the war with the Communist that financially crackdown the Nationalist government are two major reasons to cause the 228 incident in Taiwan. Those who do not like 228 incident should blame the Japanese government not protecting Taiwan against allied forces including UK/US/Russia and ROC troops.

About sovereignty of Taiwan, as Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in 1952, Taiwan either became a land of Allied Trusteeship or a ROC controlled territory. President Truman of the US stated that US has no territorial desire to Formosa and the Taiwan question should be solved in the UN. But later President Truman and allies accepted ROC administration on the island. Thus Taiwan was "accepted" and "agreed" by winning countries of World War Two (which ROC a member of it at that time) to be ruled and administered by Republic of China. Then because of the wartime period with the communist rebellion, ROC implemented Martial Law on the island until early 90's. In 1996 first direct presidential election was held in Taiwan province and Fujian province of ROC with Lee Teng Hui elected and inaugurated according to the ROC constitution as president of ROC.

Today, Taiwan is a province of ROC and definitely not a Japanese territory anymore, and Taiwan has no legal binding/connection with Japan anymore. Some people in Taiwan who lean toward Taiwan independence argue that Taiwan was not formally transferred to Republic of China but the fact is that Taiwan is a recovered territory of China. In fact Taiwan independence from China is impossible because it will cause war and Taiwan will lose the war (PRC has nuclear weapon).

Li Ao is not a historian, thus should be ignored.

Li Ao is a politician, not a historian. His accounts are falsified to gain political advantages. --Tp kde

Please read our NPOV policy. All viepoints must be taken into account and attributed to achieve NPOV. We cannot ignore Li Ao because he is a major figure and many people believe what he writes. On top of presenting his view, we can provide opposing views. We cannot censor material here. --Jiang 05:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, as long as he is not regarded as a "historian", I am ok with that.Tp kde 19:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Li Ao's status as a politician does not mean he is not also a historian. K.C. Wu was a political figure under Chiang Kai-Shek's regime, but his research into ancient Chinese history is still cited today. Unless you can provide specific examples of where Li Ao has allowed his political POV to taint his books (in terms of falsifying data), his status as a scholar of Chinese history stands, though there is certainly room to disagree with the theses he proposes. Xuanwu 22:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he is not recongized as a historian in Taiwan. Unless you can show me how is he a historian, or else anyone (that publish a book about "history") can be regarded as a historian.Tp kde 22:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given that Wiki itself lists Li Ao as a historian, the burden of proof rests on you, since you seem to be disagreeing with the consensus that he does pursue Chinese history. In addition to Wiki, Li Ao is considered a historian by Wen Guixiu, executive editor at the Oxford University Press's China branch. (Source: [4]) And the BBC says similar things. (Source: [5]) I'd say those are fairly credible endorsements. Xuanwu 22:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, if I remove the information about Li Ao as a historian on wiki, would it make any difference?

Obviously you are not from Taiwan. If you said that Li Ao is a historian in Taiwan, the population there would laugh at you... like you were from the outerspace. -- Human history is closely connected to "the place" and "the population" which the historical event occured. If the majority of the population, especially of those who experienced the event as it unfold, don't consider what Li Ao said was correct, why would you think that he was right? If he is not right, why are his points mentioned?

Li Ao's points were left here not deleted because jiang insisted "NPOV", not because Li Ao is a historian. Insisting Li Ao as a historian in Taiwan history (or "ROC" history in Taiwan), would mislead people and involve politics.... Raising the profile of this subject matter does not serve Chinese well -- even KMT wants to be evasive....Tp kde 23:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All I wanted to say was that Li Ao is not more authoritive than others when it comes to Taiwan's history. Many of the elderly population in Taiwan can prove him wrong. Give him the title "historian" would be sarcastic in some way.

The truth about 228 incident is not all that controverial, given that there are only three different group of people: the "know nothing", "smoke grenade", and "know something". As far as I know, Li Ao is only "smoke grenade" at best.Tp kde 00:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That "as far as I know" is well put from you. Which category should you belong to? What's important is that Li Ao does provide proofs for all his arguments. Also, please give us a definition of historian, many so-called historians in Taiwan are no less biased than Li Ao. (Notice how Li Hung-Hsi 李鴻禧 is regarded as historian) bobbybuilder 22:04, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Li Ao is no historian, he's a polemical pro-China writer with a long history of lying and grandstanding for political causes -- like, for example, claiming that the CIA sent him a report saying that the 319 assassination attempt on Chen was faked. Nothing he writes can be trusted. Further, Kerr was in a position to actually know whether there were Japanese on the island and to what extent, since he was in the US consulate on the island as a consular official. It is a staple of Chinese nationalist/facist political discourse that Taiwan independence is a secret plot of the Japanese, Li Ao is simply following that line. By treating Li Ao as a serious historian rather than as a right-wing polemicist, the 2-28 Wiki in effect becomes POV. This should be deleted, and instead, a paragraph put in noting that it is a staple of Chinese discourse on Taiwan that TI is a Japanese plot, and that no evidence suggests any Japanese involvement in 2-28. I've gone ahead and edited the passage -- Michael Turton

Such an irony for someone so biased to talk about NPOV. For this certain Michael Turton, before you do anything on Wiki, please learn how to sign properly. Bobbybuilder 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. The mere absence of what you consider a "proper" signature is irrelevant to the point under discussion. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits regarding KMT whitewashing

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)

the 1st paragraph

the 1st paragraph is irrelevant to the incident. esp the controversial words " china relinquished its claims..."

the introduction should start in 1945. or trace al the way bacy 1600 or 300...

Query on how identity was determined

"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)

Communism in Taiwan

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

[[6]]

Here's a contemporaneous news article (no picture) regarding the same Ms Xie: Lu, George (30 April 1949). "Woman Leads Red Campaign for Formosa". Toledo Blade. AP. Retrieved November 14, 2014.

--Mliu92 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

228?

It's such a strange name - where does it come from? 62.141.24.89 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Feb-28. Shawnc 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the sentence "After a warning shot fired by one of the agents went astray and killed an onlooker" is inappropriate for an article on this site? It's found in the first paragraph of the "Uprising and crackdown" section. 130.74.170.60 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Most Taiwanese believed that Chiang Kai-shek ordered his troops to carry out the crackdown.

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)

I agree to remove "quickly" from the sentence. Other than that, the statement is not POV.--Jerrch 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the contemporary accounts suggest local decisions to use force. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Structure

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)

Agreed. I think the last paragraph can be moved to the Legacy section.--Jerrch 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

kind people

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)

uncited contention

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 , 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)

Massecre was one day?

"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)

Agreed. The massacre lasted for months.--Jerrch 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

CCP POV?

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)

I'm not sure if CCP POV is any more relevant than any other nation's POV. This happened in Taiwan/Formosa outside of CCP control.--24.193.80.232 (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Needs Citation

"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)

pro-Japanese involvement

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)

removal of "anti chinese"

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)

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)