Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Help Please

Someone help with the flags on the military info thingy --69.157.65.49 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Unknown

Someone please do some research on:

" On 31 September 1931, two weeks after Imperial Japanese Army invaded Manchuria, CCP Central Commitee issued a manifesto, one of the sentence:"
On which year did September have 31 days?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.232.17 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

八路軍新四軍

中國共產黨中央委員會聲明：我們約束自己領導的抗日武裝隊伍，將其行動限制在戰區與敵人後方及陝甘寧邊區二十三縣境內，而不向其他地方作任何足以引起友軍 衝突的行動，而在戰區及敵人後方則與一切抗日友軍協同作戰。但要求各抗日友軍對其部下亦應加以約束，勿向八路軍新四軍採取足以引起衝突的任何行動，以保證 抗日戰線上的團結一致。同時要求國民政府極力援助八路軍新四軍及一切抗日游擊隊，因為八路軍新四軍及一切抗日游擊隊乃是位於國防最前線的軍隊，而在三年以 來八路軍新四軍進行了大小一萬餘次的英勇戰鬥，堅持了廣大敵後地區的抗戰，鉗制了全國百分之四十至五十的敵人，而其處境則是最險惡的，具生活則是最困苦 的，其彈藥則是最缺乏的。

The above quote is from:s:zh:中國共產黨中央委員會為抗戰三周年紀念對時局宣言 1940年7月5日.

Of paticular interest is this sentence:而在三年以 來八路軍新四軍進行了大小一萬餘次的英勇戰鬥 Translation:In the last three years, The Eighth Route Army New Fourth Army were engaged in 10,000 plus times of heroic battles. End of translation. Well, my opinion is this is a outright lie, as until today, the Communist(hence the Red Army) did not, and could not provide any solid facts/nor evidence towards these so called heroic battles.

User Blueshirts, what you think? Arilang talk 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ten thousand heroic battles. Maybe they thought a couple of cadres shooting a Japanese post was a battle. Blueshirts (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that 千 and 萬 are often used metaphorically and as an expression? An example would be the phrase 萬歲 wansui; do you honestly think that the Kangxi Emperor would literally live for 10,000 years? Do you honestly believe that the People's Republic of China would last for 10,000 years? (Hell, the United Kingdom hasn't even surpassed 1,500 years...) Do you honestly believe that Mao Zedong lived for 10,000 years? Don't get all cocky with getting things as they are literally. Emotive language is a part of the Chinese psyche; you should know that. 萬 can be an expression for a very big number, as in 千山萬水 (how on earth would someone be bothered to accurately measure out exactly 1,000 mountains and 10,000 nautical miles of ocean?), similar to gazillion in English. Japanese Adult entertainment magazines often refer that Sora Aoi has 狂姦三千次; do you honestly believe that her cervix is that strong? You now see how pointless this is? Arguing about how many battles the CCP has been in against the devils is pointless in argumentative reasoning. What difference does it make, if (insert famous guy here) said something about there being (insert positive integer here) battles? I can't recall who, but there is a line from a well-known psychologist: As long as you are against something, you will search for the most minute detail as long as it is useful towards your argument. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You didn't have to explain how to read Chinese to any of us　(me or Arilang), especially what you think doesn't apply to this case. Here the CCP is claiming exactly "one ten thousand" incidences, specifically (一萬), not just "tens of thousands" or "hundreds of thousands" (萬, 千萬, or 成千上萬). It is very clear they were claiming an exact number, because they didn't use a vague quantifier, and also given the nature of the announcement, it doesn't seem that they were talking metamorphically at all. Blueshirts (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The song 一万个理由 by 郑源 does not literally contain, depict, or talk about exactly 10,000 excuses. The song 一千年以后 by JJ Lin does not represent exactly 1,000 years, but again rather a representation of a very long period of time. Don't you play advocate with me. Adding a 一 in front represents nothing. QUOTE: "especially what you think doesn't apply to this case" - are you trying to begin playing a game of Argument from authority here? What makes it that what you think is correct, while I am incorrect, your authority? You really want to know how absurd your claim of "adding numbers in front of something makes it exact"? The AV film "美脚美女の挑発FUCK4時間！" by Maria Ozawa does not last exactly four hours, it goes for 3:55, including closing credits. See how non-logical it is now? Since your argument fails Inductive reasoning, you must find another argument; it is clear that your current one is absurd as hell. And I interpret your attitude as that of a mother scolding a child; I will by no means attempt to avoid humiliating you if you talk like that. I don't care how upset you get when your argument is shut down by a vulgar, obscene example, a loss is a loss, deal with it, no excuses please. As we Beijingers say, "咱们是爷们，不是娘们". Suck it up like a 爷 should, and find a better argument when you stand back up from defeat, or don't argue at all. This argument has gone the way of the dodo. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not listen to some kid who obviously knows little, either on arguments or the context and circumstances surrounding the CCP's announcements. Face it, why are you so angry? Your Chinese is not as good as you think it is, no matter how many Chinese pop or Japanese porn names you throw at us. Blueshirts (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lo, 'tis another example of poor sportsmanship. Ad hominem... you must be a very great person. I greatly admire you. Really. When you go apply for adminship, I'll be voting for you! :D </sarcasm> QUOTE: "Face it, why are you so angry?" - Let's just say you were Jewish, for the sake of it. I could be a right-wing son-of-a-bitch and find a billion (lo! 'tis a metaphor, methinks!) references to prove that the holocaust never happened, and that it was something invented by evil zionists. How would you feel? Now, you are using blackhanded tactics to browbeat the CCP in the most distasteful way. As a patriot of the PRC and as a free-minded free citizen living in the Commonwealth of Australia with CoA citizenship whom has made the decision with his free mind to be who he is, don't you think this son-of-a-bitch editor would be angry? Angry, you say?!? What the hell do you think? You use illogical arguments to fuel a viewpoint that is disputable as fuck, and I am ANGRY?!? As an editor, you FAIL to meet your obligations in fulfilling WP:ATTACK and WP:BURDEN, and so I am quite surprised that you are breathing down my neck here, of all places. Have a good think of what you have said, comrade. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Angry kid, this is from your Chinese user page[1]: 對不起，我的中文不是很好 (Sorry, my Chinese is not very good). You seem pretty honest there. Blueshirts (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

End this WP:ATTACK nonsense, this is your final warning. WP:ANI will be notified if words are not eaten. And how on earth is this relavant to the fact that you have misinterpreted "一萬"? Doesn't that even make you even more humiliated, that a fucktard with a lesser Chinese-language skill than you just kicked your ass in sentence analysis? QUOTE: "I would rather not listen to some kid who obviously knows little" - you a truly a great person, you'll get married for sure, and have plenty of kids just like you. You've been shoving Ad hominem and argument from ignorance down my throat for days now, and I have no idea when I'm going to burst. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, are you kidding me? You have misinterpreted the word, backed up your claims with Chinese song names and porn titles, fell flat on your face on showing off your Chinese skills while admitting your Chinese actually sucks, used a bunch of F words, so on and so forth. When are you going to stop acting uncivilly and focus on the CCP's announcement in 1940? And you are a kid, judging from the way you've behaved and that mugshot of yours. Blueshirts (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Shit, I think I'd feel much better going for tit for tat. I've been sucking up to you for quite a while since those ROC-Taiwan rename discussions, but if you fail to show respect, then why the fuck should I? You want Ad hominem? I've give you Ad hominem; with all the blocks you've got, you may as well change your name to Brownshirts. You now feel like shit don't you? So why go on with this "kid" nonsense if you don't feel like you're 妈的爽 afterwards? Ever feel that you're not the angel you see yourself in your own mind? Oh, wait, you've wrote FAs and that makes you superior. Lovely. I hope this son-of-a-bitch angry kid that is myself just made you feel that coming. Like I said, Tit for tat. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Uncivil? Tu quoque? That mugshot of mine? Well, are you 爷 enough to show your face, or are you afraid of showing a 12-year-old face scarred with glasses (oh, the horror of shortsightedness), or the unshaven face of an unemployed University of Taipei student studying Commerce? 你有脸说这句话吗？ Your talk is clearly irrelevant if you don't meet the line at the same instance. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'll ever feel like "shit" because of some angry kid who cusses a lot. Nice try though. Honestly, are you going to start talk about the CCP and their ten thousand and more battles or what? Blueshirts (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not answering the question. Don't run from it like a 娘们. And we were talking about those ten thousand battles before all this nonsense. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and come on, try not to be so ageist - by the time you develop cardiovascular disease and arthiritis, today's youth would be paying your taxes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Answering what question? I don't see you asking anything except trying to make me feel like "shit" and failing miserably. You have not answered any questions on the Chinese Commies, except for throwing out F words and porn titles. Blueshirts (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "no matter how many Chinese pop or Japanese porn names you throw at us." - as a matter of fact, these porn titles have just made your argument crash and burn. I don't see how this is "kid" material. You're just playing down something to make sure you don't lose face. You can't hide anything, it's not like I'm not Chinese. QUOTE: "Your Chinese is not as good as you think it is" - neither is your reasoning, especially going through the 5,000 bytes above. Also, what I meant on ZH Wiki was that I ain't got shit for reading and writing Traditional Chinese, and I read and write simplified at slow speed, because I natively speak, read and write English, and natively speak Standard Beijing Chinese (and none of that regional shit. Hell, I may as well change my ZH page to 對不起，我的中文比Blueshirts那个二屄牛多了, since Beijing Chinese is the most correct Mandarin Chinese). I don't want people to talk to me on ZH Wiki because it gives me the shits to read Traditional, and then slowly respond. I don't see how you can demonstrate your English skill to exceed mine, so your argument regarding the Chinese of me and you is null and void. Also, how is this of any relevance? Any Chinese speaker can tell that 萬 can clearly be used as a metaphor. You don't need to be able to read and write Chinese with great skill and speed to know that. You don't have to be literate to a high degree to know Chinese. Irrelevant as hell. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody gives a crap about why your Chinese is not that good, can we move past that? I have said 一萬餘 used by the CCP means ten thousand plus some more, in agreement with Arilang. Commonly we do not see both words used figuratively. In this context, it's not a simple metaphor, but a begging plea by the CCP to get more arms and support because they have fought exactly ten thousand and some more battles of "all sizes" in the three years from 1937 to 1940. There doesn't seem to be any metamorphic exaggerations as customary in communist propaganda. Blueshirts (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who brought it up. You should give a damn, because I have provided an explanation for something you have stated incorrectly. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Use common sense. Have there been any armies that have been involved in more than five hundred battles? Do you think Mao was really that stupid? Stupid enough to win the Civil War? It is clearly an exaggeration based on metaphoric expression. 一萬餘. Just like me saying "I've eaten over a thousand bananas" or "I've done this more than a million times". There is nothing there that says it is not a metaphor. "I've put my shoes on over a thousand times already." Obviously I haven't, but I use such a sentence to express that I am tired of something, or I am of great awe of something, or whatever. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how many sentences you come up with, porn titles or not, becauese none of them take the CCP's circumstances into context. Your syntax is different from the CCP's exact wording too, so just quit giving more useless examples. 大小一萬餘次, which means ten thousand plus engagements of all sizes. The announcement obviously counted any small skirmishes, maybe as small as some CCP cadres throwing rocks at a couple Japanese sentries. And now you seem to agree with Arilang that the communists obviously lied and exaggerated. Blueshirts (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just back down, and end this now. Like men. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As for the 大小一萬餘次, how do you interpret it? How about this; let's go downtown Shanghai and ask twenty people what they think. Justify your claim with solid facts. And no, I haven't been "giving more useless examples". If you take the time to actually have a look at them, rather than being hot under the collar... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's end this stupidity once and for all. No more what you "think" is right and porn titles. Here are the top results from Google Chinese using the exact term 一萬餘 (one ten thousand)[2], as used by the CCP quote posted by Arilang: 愛河一萬餘尾魚, 一萬餘戶停電, 一萬餘支注射液, 一萬餘件西沙出水文物, 一萬餘戶受害, 偷稅一萬餘元. They all mean specifically one ten thousand incidences or things. None of them are the figurative "tens of thousands" because 一萬餘 is not commonly used. I suggest you read over them slowly and swallow and digest how the exact word 一萬餘 is used. Blueshirts (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're always taking it into the context of an exact figure. You can't take a sentence regarding something quantative and compare it with a sentence with something that is relatively immesurable. You can measure 大小一万公斤的米, 大小一万个红枫, becuase they can be counted. There is no one to record with pencil and paper each time a battle occurs. One can only guess, but guessing can always lead to expressions being used. This can be used in propaganda, yes, but nobody is stupid enough to take it for a factual quantity. It isn't the only way the phrase can be used. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
And end all this porn rubbish. That was ten minutes ago. Stick to the topic. I thought you said you ended it. You're spraying kerosene here, and I have a naked flame. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have laid out my reasoning, Chinese syntax and common word usage, AND proved it with a search of the exact term using Google, with a bunch of links posted above, and they ALL back what I have been saying all along. You've got nothing except for more twisting of the word's true meaning, and you have NOT in one instance used the exact term that the CCP quoted to make your point. I have to say I have way more persuasive proof than you have. Are we finished here? Blueshirts (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

However, you have not proven that this is what is being expressed in the CCP quote. Your reasoning does not cover the sentence being figurative, because you have only selected lines that are not. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I can express an equivalent, such as "The Persian Army was 30,000 strong, and were faced by a Greek force of about 300." (Texts regarding the Battle of Thermopylae) You can never get an exact number, especially when history and length of time poses a problem. One can speculate, but it is often that someone recording history will have little twists. But large numbers generally represent "many"; in such cases, the numbers are never taken seriously. The 30,000 is figurative. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How many times should I repeat this? I have explained how the syntax and word usage work, I have done a Google search using the exact word the CCP used, and from the results I have many links posted above that all prove my reasoning, that the CCP meant exactly one ten thousand plus. However, you keep on yapping. Since you insist that the CCP used the word non-literally, which would be syntactically incorrect anyways, it is up to YOU to prove that they used the word figuratively AND that the word is commonly used figuratively. I have done all my reasoning and searches using the exact word 一萬餘, and I have not made any vague examples and try to pass them off to convince anybody. You, on the other hand, have not used the exact word 一萬餘 even once in your arguments. You claim you're a man (爷), and a man knows when to call it quits. Blueshirts (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "However, you keep on yapping." 我已经感觉和你争争吵吵是没啥意思。从现在开始，不说人话，我不会理你的。 Anyways, I'mma'gun go have some WP:TEA, be back in a few days, there's no point in staying here if all there will be is angry talk. I suggest you should do the same too. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. You've been the only angry one here. I have not once lost my temper and used curse words like you did numerous times. It's the third time I've repeated this, but I've laid out my reasoning and proof very clearly, and anyone viewing this talk page can read all of our conversations and see that. However, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. I expected you to read the arguments and gave you some "face" in my last message by suggesting you to back down like a "man" as you claimed to be. But no, you still have to pretend to be on a high horse and DODGE MY QUESTIONS and finally accuse me of "angry talk." I didn't want to emphasize this, but YOU GOT PROVERBIALLY OWNED IN THIS ARGUMENT. I'll see you around. Blueshirts (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Knock off the caps. It's considered shouting. See internet etiquette. Refer to my comment above if you wish to engage in further, meaningful talk. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and referring to your edit summary a few days ago, who's the angry one now? And don't get too giddy or excited here. I don't see how you've "won" anything, or that any of this is a competition. Try to keep your anger level down, I suggest going somewhere else to calm down and relax, before coming back. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to my edit summary "a few days ago"? I thought you've decided to settle this down like this man a long time ago, yet you still try to continue this "I did he did" kid stuff. I have no interest to doing that, so PROVIDE PROOF FOR YOUR REASONING USING THE EXACT CCP TERM LIKE I DID. I wouldn't regard an internet debate as a victory, but YOU'VE LOST THE ARGUMENT TERRIBLY BY DODGING MY QUESTIONS AND RESORTING TO MORE PERSONAL COMMENTS. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. I make my letters uppercase for emphasis because you really like to dodge the questions. Are they easier for you to read? Blueshirts (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I want you to 1). PROVIDE PROOF THAT 一萬餘 IS USED FIGURATIVELY and 2). PROVIDE PROOF THAT THE CCP USED THE TERM 一萬餘 FIGURATIVELY CONTRARY TO NORMAL CHINESE SYNTAX. No more playing and dodging around, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. Blueshirts (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, GTFO.
Oh, come on, just GTFO and go have some WP:TEA. It doesn't hurt to do so. I mean, who's the one flaming on this talk page? I've never hit the Caps lock, and I've only used bold for dramatical emphasis (Oh, Romeo, where art thou?), and not shouting. Plus, why are we arguing about something that isn't even in the article yet? Do we really need to take it that seriously? It's a little talk page post for christ sakes, why are we getting emotional? Is it worth it, getting uproared over such a tiny little thing? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, learn about civility a bit, will ya? You telling me to get some wp:tea? This coming from a kid who gets angry easily, shouts out porn titles, makes multiple ad hominem attacks, uses F words multiples times, including the word "fucktard", asks me to "GTFO", so on and so forth. Come on, who's getting "uproared"? Who are you fooling here? Blueshirts (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, Tu quoque?!? What have you done? WP:ATTACK? Are you really WP:COOL as you claim? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Blueshirts, by reading the comments you and Benlinsquare put forward, I have figured out you two are much younger than me, so I shall add something here as a Old Man.
  1. The important thing here is the complex international interaction between China, Japan, USSR, USA, and the inner fighting between CCP and KMT. We should keep our focus.
  2. Benlinsquare could still be a teenager, as we all know, high school students sometimes behave like wild horse because of hormone surge, have to be patience. However, foul language should not be tolerated, especially words related to human anatomy can sometimes be distastefull.
  3. Let's keep our focus on what IJA did in the war, and end these school classroom kind of talk. Arilang talk 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've never lost my cool here. The focus has been on the term 一萬餘, and I believe I have done a convincing job on explaining what the term means. Blueshirts (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirt, I am not saying you are wrong, what is important is, it is better to win him over, using historical facts, no matter how difficult it could be. Talking about historical facts, why is it that the role of New Fourth Army and Eighth Route Army hardly ever being mentioned in this article? Officially they were supposed to be under the command of Chiang Kaishek, shouldn't we talk about what they did/or did not do? Arilang talk 02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I can win him over. Nobody can. My aim has been on the term 一萬餘 and I've provided proofs and many searches on Google using the term. I had thought about discussing the CCP's situation, but decided against it as that would've been more complicated and required a lot more explaining. So, I decided in my arguments to focus on the term 一萬餘, and I've done an extra careful job to differentiate this term from the figurative use of 萬,成千上萬, and so forth. Thus, I don't think bringing in what the CCP did during the war was necessary, since that's been documented well elsewhere. I forgot to ask you, but do you agree with my approach and reasoning? In the end, I've proven my points logically, and now he only has to do two things: 1) prove that 一萬餘 is commonly used figuratively and 2) prove that 一萬餘 is used figuratively by the CCP. So far he has produced nothing except for more comments that have nothing to do with the discussion. And from the looks of it I don't think he'll ever contribute meaningfully to this discussion. He has too much "face" to save and that's why you can't win him over either. Blueshirts (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

中共中央為公布國共合作宣言

Blueshirts, like I have said, you are not wrong. But for a person/or persons, they have been told Apple can only be red for their whole life, suddenly, someone else said Apple can be green too, naturally there shall be some kind of shock reactions. Everything takes time, sometimes is fast, sometimes slow.

Apart from the 大小一萬餘次的英勇戰鬥 example, there are still many examples need to be discussed:

zh:s:中共中央為公布國共合作宣言...作者：周恩來


This is another very important article written by none other then Zhou Enlai in 1937.7.4. This was the ultmost solemn pledge by the CCP towards Chiang Kaishek, and exactly how many points have the CCP carried out in real life? None. Because from the beginning of the CCP, 推翻國民黨政權的暴動政策及赤化運動 was their sole policy. Arilang talk 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The CCP has failed to achieve 2, 3 and 4, however, number 1 has been partially completed. 民生主義: Since the establishment of the PRC in 1949, average life expectancy has increased from 56 years to 70 years, GDP has increased significantly, poverty reduced (although it is still a big issue today, but nevertheless reduced), and land distributed among the larger population. 民權主義: The CCP has failed to achieve full democracy, that I do agree with. 民族主義: Sun Yat-sen meant this as "freedom from imperailist domination". China is no longer dominated by colonial powers. Unlike the era of the Eight-Nation Alliance, China is now strong enough to defend itself from being taken over. Unlike the era of the ROC, the PRC now has full sovereignty over Tibet, Xinjiang, Heilongjiang and Inner Mongolia. During the SSJW, the CCP motivated militiamen to struggle against the foreign invader that is Japan, and sought to reunify the mainland (under communism, however) from those that separated it, namely the Japanese in the East, the KMT in Chongqing (later Nanking during the CCW), and those that attempted independence, such as the East Turkestan Republic. Thus, nationalism has been achieved under the CCP. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

territorial changes

Please don't add some fringe interpretation of the San Francisco treaty here. That belongs in political status of Taiwan. The fact of the matter is all three areas listed reverted to Chinese control as a result of the war. Blueshirts (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the undesputable fact is that ROC troops took over control of Manchuria and Taiwan on order form general MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander Pacific, SFT was signed much later and relates to the controversy surrounding the status of Taiwan due to the Chinese Civil War. If anyone disagree please start RFC (with account name so that we know who you are!), and refrain from edit warring due to your personal POV.DCTT (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to editing wikipedia, we need to focus on facts and contribute only facts you fully understand and know. After reading both of your statements I can see both of you probably do not know about the relevant information on the subject matter. Blueshirts, it was not very hard to "interpret" San Francisco Peace Treaty for in Chapter II TERRITORIES Article 2 and section b CLEARLY states "b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." There is nothing in the language of the peace treaty that states transfer of Taiwanese sovereignty, let alone "reverting" to Chinese control or transferring Taiwanese sovereignty to China, PRC or ROC. There are also no other official statements from Japan or international bodies that recognize this arrangement of reverting back to Chinese control other than Chinese. There is no UN resolution on disposition of Taiwan islands, either. So, in essence both of you are basically violating NPOV policy by solely acknowledging Chinese position only. I personally would much rather go with the peace treaty signed and ratified by all nations with legal capacity to discuss territorial matters in world war 2. ROC and PRC did not even have such capacity, and you two are taking their words for it?
If you two don't already know, peace treaty serves as the ultimate and final legally binding settlement for all issues among the warring parties. The loser signs an instrument of surrender to promise they will give up under a set of condition or no condition, and peace treaty is when the victors and tehe loser gather together and acknowledge the effort made by the loser to fulfill the demands of the victors. When everyone signs the peace treaty, the minute it comes into force, warring condition is over and all parties are at peace. Whatever unfulfilled portion of the instrument of surrender thus become nullified by the peace treaty. Treaties are almost always legally binding and has the highest legal priority, especially when it is something like San Francisco Peace Treaty. Declaration can ONLY be legally effective if and only if they are referenced by a legally binding treaty (see Cairo Declaration referred by Potsdam and then referred by Japanese instrument of surrender) or becomes a legally binding treaty by parties with proper capacity(see Joint Declaration between the United Kingdom and China on the Question of Hong Kong of 1984). See http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp#declarations Most of the time, declarations are just a forward looking statement and always set a "goal" that is not already done. In the case of Cairo Declaration and Potsdam, their legal effectiveness comes in when Japanese signed the instrument of surrender agreeing to fulfill what was said on Potsdam and Cairo regarding Taiwan. However, Chinese civil war broke out, and that split China to two "governments" lacking legal capacity to be the sole representative of China. Since both of them lack the legal qualification to be China, none of them were invited to the treaty signing and Japan had no China to return Taiwan to. It was the decision of the nations after days of debate to let Japan simply fulfill half of the requirement and leave Taiwan issue to be decided by principle of self determination per the charter of UN. Which all signing parties of the SFPT vowed to abide by.
If you are familiar with international laws and the principles regarding valid international treaties(such as SF Peace Treaty), you would know that every single valid treaty signed and ratified by member states of the UN must be registered with the secretariat and the obligations set forth in the treaties must not violate the obligations of member states in the UN charter, "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail"(Article 143). Under SF Peace Treaty, the treaty its self and every signing country including Japan(expressed intent to be a member of UN) will need to adhere to the UN charter. Cairo Dec and Potsdam Dec are not even in the same league with SFPT, heck, they are not even the same sport!
If you are wondering if SFPT is simply just vague on its language an China can still claim what Japan has abandoned. Think again. Previous drafts of SFPT did include language of returning Taiwan back to China between 1945 to 1949, but with the fall of ROC, that portion was scratched from the treaty. According to a sworn testimony as recorded on the court docs of Lin, et al Vs. United States (Civil Action No. 06-1825(RMC) filed on 3/18/2008 page 3), prior drafts of Article 2(b) of the SFPT originally intended to give China sovereignty over Taiwan but later affirmatively changed their intention. Draft dated August 5th 1947 and January 8th 1948 provided: "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the island of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands." In the final draft, this was not the case, Japanese only give up the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and NOT transferred it back to China, that is an undisputable fact.
And DCTT, first...the general order No. 1(a) issued by MacArthur states "a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16° north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek." It is obvious that you did not even read the order its self, otherwise you would not have missed that part about excluding Manchuria, and guess what? The section b of the same order tells us who was supposed to accept the surrender of Japan in Manchuria. "b. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within Manchuria, Korea north of 38° north latitude and Karafuto shall surrender to the Commander in Chief of Soviet Forces in the Far East." Not the ROC troops, stop making things up, this is wikipedia!! You need to contribute things that are VERIFIABLE.
Second, as we know from Hague IV of 1899 Laws of War, well you two probably do not know, military occupation does not equate to sovereignty transfer. Just because you accepted surrender from enemy troops on enemy territory does not mean that territory now belongs to you. Sovereignty disposition must be done in a legally binding treaty that is signed and ratified by both sides of the war. From 1945 to 1952, Taiwan was still a part of Japan and that ceased after Japan renounced the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan with SFPT. Manchuria has always been a part of China per League of Nations decision after the Lytton Report in 1931, so even Soviets accepted surrender of the Japanees there, the lands still undisputedly belong to China. Which is why there was no point for Japan to renounce anything in SFPT on Manchuria. Even PR China got Tibet to sign and ratify the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet to annex Tibet! If what you said about surrendering equals sovereignty transfer, then you must agree that Manchuria belongs to Russians now. They were the ones who accepted the surrender from Japanese in Manchuria under General Order No. 1 issued by General MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander Pacific!
Finally, whether or not the war is over is determined by who has successfully come out victorious in the realm of the territory defined before the start of the civil war. In this case, Taiwan was not within the territorial sovereignty before the start of civil war(it was a part of Japan until 1952 and civil war started in 1927), so it is not within the conflict of Chinese civil war. Taiwan was a part of Japan and Japan took part in world war 2 which INCLUDES the Second Sino-Japanese War. SFPT was signed and ratified to settle World War 2 which INCLUDES the Second Sino-Japanese War. Plus the treaty deals with territorial changes, in fact, it is the only valid treaty that deals with Taiwan's territorial disposition after the world war. Treaty of Taipei did not deal with that at all. SFPT has to be signed much later because of the controversy you stated on Chinese civil war, but in 1951, the world pretty much knew that they could not come to a conclusion and so they went ahead and consent the Japanese to simply give up Taiwan and let the UN charter deals with the rest. You cannot use Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration to supercede Treaty of San Francisco, gentlemen, this is just ludicrous because SFPT clearly replaced their legality as final. Treaty of Taipei was created because SFPT empowered its validity since SFPT granted allies to settle with Japan independently on matters that SFPT did not address, if you guys take a look at TOT you will see that SFPT is properly mentioned and referenced. What you do NOT see is arrangement regarding Taiwan's territory disposition. Why not? Because TOT comes into force in August 1952, it's after SFPT already come into force, Taiwanese sovereignty was no longer Japan's to transfer.
I sincerely hope you guys can heed my advice and work on fact finding and verifiability. The arguments you guys made are backed by evidence that can only be verified by sources wikipedia defines as not reliable. Blueshirts, note your various warnings on the article, I dont want to have to report you. DCTT, read more on the history can better your argument. your grandfather may have been the colonel for ROC, my grandfather was an adviser for both President Chiangs and he was involved in the SFPT translation project as well. If you guys want to contribute more, better brush up on your relevant knowledges. good day and stop reverting.Mafia godfather (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What you've written is just more lawyer talk from pro-independence groups. What we wrote here is that Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria all were reverted to Chinese (Nationalist) control following the war. The fact is as simple as that. For compromise we can remove all the peace treaties from "territorial changes" since what they dealt with became complicated with the Chinese Civil War and the Nationalist' loss of mainland. Blueshirts (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirts, unfortunately, international laws are what dictate how the world should be after the world war, this is the way the world want to do to strive for greater peace. And international laws are made of valid treaties the sovereign states come to accept. It is very important for us to understand the letters of law when it comes to solemn matters like this. Political propaganda from ROC textbooks may fool some people into believing it as gospel, but they do not stand a chance just like the old Japanese textbooks on world war 2 atrocities.
What I have stated above can be validated in many places other than pro-independence groups, and I do not appreciate your personal attack against me on this matter. If you have any credible evidence to refute me, please provide them, I have researched on the subject for over a decade and I am very sure there is nothing you can provide I have not already seen or reviwed. The original wording was retrocession of Manchuria, Taiwan, and Penghu. Apart from the word retrocession explicitly express the action was an act of sovereignty transfer, which it is not true for Taiwan, it is also stating that Taiwan and Penghu come under Chinese control the same way as Manchuria, which was not true either. ROC has never controlled Manchuria after Soviets leased it from Qing Empire and Japanese took it over from Russians after Russo-Japanese War. Again, like I told DCTT, MacArthur asked SOVIETS to accept Japanese surrender, NOT the ROC or Nationalists if you will.
As I said earlier, international laws on war dictates that military occupation(control) does not mean sovereignty transfer. So you cannot use the word "retrocession" on Taiwan and Penghu. I appreciate your concession, but I am going to take one step further and simply remove Taiwan and Penghu out of the territorial change part. For no treaties dictates that Taiwan was returned to China by Japan as result of Sino-Japanese War. Taiwan as of now is a limbo cession and its status is undetermined as it is not owned by the ROC government on Taiwan.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I would add to that that even "Retrocession to China of Manchuria" is not correct. The article considers the hostilities in Manchuria as a conflict separate from SSJW: the USSR was excluded from a belligerent list, Manchurian offensive is not in the list of the battles, so it is not clear for me how could SSJW lead to "Retrocession to China of Manchuria". Japanese forces in Manchuria were defeated by the Soviets, they surrendered to the Soviets and the Soviets passed the control over Manchuria to Chinese authorities - what relation does it have to SSJW?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul, I personally think that we should not even have territorial changes. Manchuria belonged to China all along. There isnt a territorial change, technically. I am only fixing the Taiwan part. Manchurian part, you guys can reach a consensus on that.Mafia godfather (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What you've insisted belongs to the legal realm and a fringe viewpoint espoused by only a fraction of pro-independent groups. This is related to the recent lawsuit against the US government (控美案), with former President Chen tagged along, that both the US Supreme Court and the US Military Court of Appeals refused to hear because it was deemed a political issue. What I've suggested is very simple, that the ROC government gained de facto control of Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria as a result of the war, and this had been the political goal of the the ROC government since the war began. I removed treaties from the infobox because they can be interpreted multiple ways. But your removal of Taiwan from the box completely misses the hard reality that the ROC gained control of Taiwan because of the war, and this doesn't make sense. The legal issues you brought up belongs in political status of Taiwan, whereas here I'm just putting in very clear de facto changes on the ground. Blueshirts (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe you mix the terms "gaining a control" and "territorial change". However, one way or the another, China didn't get a control over Manchuria as a result of SSJW. That was a result of Soviet invasion of Manchuria (not a part of this article). Therefore, Manchuria should be excluded.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul, maybe we should just do away with territorial change. Much easier that way, most war pages dont have it anyway. It is optional. Because it is bound to get controversial, look at this lengthy discussion we are having right now! Mafia godfather (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. Template:Infobox military conflict only states "any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict". Blueshirts (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, by excluding the USSR from the list of belligerents and the Manchurian offensive from the list of the SSJW battles the article implies that regaining of control over Manchuria by China was not a result of SSJW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Blueshirts, if you are talking about the Lin-Hartzell group, I am not a supporter of them nor I support having United States taking over Taiwan. Personally, I think they are nuts and I am glad the United States supereme court shut them down. Former president Chen understands the lunacy pretty well as his most recent editorial contribution clearly states that the sovereignty rests with Taiwanese people. The whole suing the US thing is just a farce, he is probably bored. And if you look at what I am saying, I made no mention or reference to what the Lin-Hartzells are advocating, in fact, i am preparing an article now to debunk one of their argument. Just because the Nationalists gained control of Taiwan does not mean they own the territory, and you cannot even provide any legal or official documents from international bodies that can validate your argument of retrocesion. Can you say United States controlled Iraq is an annexation or acquisition? No. if you want to, you can put Japanese renunciation of Taiwanese sovereignty and ROC government is the current administer of Taiwanee sovereignty. Retrocession implies ownership, definition of retrocession is "To cede or give back (a territory, for example); return." and that is something ROC government does NOT have since Japan has never ceded or returned Taiwan to the ROC! Mafia godfather (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument serves as the basis for Lin-Hartzell's interpretation. Personally I think the situation is complicated due to differing interpretations and can be written off from the infobox altogether, per WP:MILHIST guidelines. I figure the entire thing is best relegated to the bottom of the article and expanded upon in the political status of Taiwan page. If you can read Chinese, try finding the article "中日和平條約的簽訂與中華民國主權的確定" from the journal of modern history 12/06 published by Academia Sinica. Blueshirts (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lin-Hartzell's advocacy of Taiwan is still under military occupation of the USMG is ludicrous under the disguise of the political reality that Taiwan's legal status is not yet determined. This is even echoed by the US administration and observed by the PRC. Although the US promised never to repeat it, it has been a position the world and the US has never formally renounced. See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e13/72417.htm You might recall recent remark made by Japanese representative to Taipei -- Masaki Saito, that Taiwan's status is undetermined. I have read the article you suggested, it is written by HUang, a research associate at Academica Sinica and it is merely his own research opinion. I am well-versed in Treaty of Taipei article 10, the fact that Japanese did not have territorial sovereignty of Taiwan at the time when Treaty of Taipei came into force, that does not mean they had no right to determine the nationality of the citizens on Taiwan. Naturalizing Taiwanese people to be ROC nationals were well within Japanese power to do so, any country can formally relinquish the nationality or citizenship of its own citizens/nationals. However, that does not mean Taiwan is then a part of ROC or even mean Taiwan is returned to China. Treaty of Taipei is Japanese acknowledgment of ROC's capacity to ADMINISTER Taiwanese sovereignty as it was already the case prior to the treaty signing. When the US conquered Iraq, they set up Coalition Provisional Authority government over Iraq, the CPA also had all the power to administer Iraqi sovereignty. But did that mean CPA was the owner of Iraqi sovereignty? No. Just like the ROC government on Taiwan now, ROC can administer Taiwan, but not legally own it. The difference of Taiwan and Iraq is, the CPA transferred the sovereignty back to Iraq a year after establishment, but ROC hogged onto Taiwan and never bothered to transfer? Why? Because unlike the United States, the ROC has no country to go back to, they are MAROONED on Taiwan after 1949. That is why to prevent ROC from being legally supplanted, they outlawed national referendum for the people and remained in martial laws while influencing the people via obscurantism. The article you suggested is one of those very weak attempt to try to convince people that TOT was it. Well, most 3 years olds know that you cannot give away something you no longer own. Japan has given up Taiwan in SF Peace Treaty and it came into effect months before TOT came into effect, SFPT would supercede TOT by general principle if territorial disposition was mentioned in TOT. However, TOT mentioned nothing about territorial sovereignty as research associate Huang has admitted. Then there is no cigar. ROC government can continue its administration as long as people do not supplant them, but they do not have ownership over the islands. This is a globally recognized fact. In that sense, I cannot agree to "retrocession". While "return to Chinese control" sounds better, but I would prefer "Taiwan and Penghu remain in ROC government administration" Mafia godfather (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
All these legal arguments presented by Mafia godfather reminded me of a class I took on international law at Yale Law School a long time ago, but shouldn't the military infobox state what happened at the end of the war (in this case 1945)? Using WWII article's infobox as reference (where no treaties were mentioned), a likely result statement could be "Unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces in China to ROC with Allied victory in World War II, ROC took control of Taiwan and Penghu, Soviet occupation and withdrawal from Manchuria, resumption of the Chinese Civil War, Communists victory in mainland China, ROC retreat to Taiwan (more...)" If the result section is very comprehensive, then perhaps territorial change section is not needed. DCTT (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I would vote for that. Just have the territorial change section removed, most wars dont have it anyway.Mafia godfather (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Soviet occupation of Manchuria is not more relevant for the article (in its present state) than American occupation of Okinawa. What events, described in the article, lead to that? Geography of SSJW (according to the article) excluded Manchuria. According to the article the USSR didn't participate in SSJW. According to the article no SSJW battles lead to occupation of Manchuria. Therefore, the connection between SSJW and Soviet occupation of Manchuria is unclear from the article. Taking into account that Soviet offensive was one of two major reason for Japanese surrender (the second one was not alleged Chinese successes in mainland China, but American bombing campaign and occupation of Japanese home islands), such a statement would be ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
PS. To demonstrate my point, let me remind you that no one claims that Allied occupation of Western Europe was a result of Eastern Front (World War II), although, obviously, only German defeat there made Allied landing in Normandy possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueshirts and DCTT. Arguments revolving around the SFPT and such, while certainly not fringe, are curently being given way too much weight because rightly or wrongly, the ROC took control and assumed sovereignty of Taiwan in 1945. It has treated Taiwan as its sovereign territory ever since, "legal" or not. Furthermore, no state has ever raised any objection/protest to said assumption, at least not in a direct way. As such, I propose changing the box back to retrocession of Taiwan, etc. etc. with perhaps a footnote pointing to Legal status of Taiwan to inform the reader that disputes exist surrounding the precise legalities. The text likewise should emphasize the de facto resumption of sovereignty rather than argue that the resumption was illegal. (FWIW, there are also the notions that (1) since "China" never signed the SFPT, "China" has absolutely no obligation to do anything based upon it, (2) ambiguities should be interpreted in a manner consistent with prior statements - and to do otherwise would be treacherous, and (3) the lack of protest by any state has existed up to today, making the issue settled under the doctrine of prescription. Those details don't belong here IMHO, as they are already nicely covered in the legal status article. I plan to make the changes in a few days, pending comment from other editors. Ngchen (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ngchen, I suggested you research a bit on international laws. You are suggesting it is legal and proper for ROC to annex Taiwan via military occupation, which is against the prevailing international laws and the UN charter signed by the ROC. If your rhetoric was true, then Manchuria would be rightfully a part of Japan and Manchuko should have been legitimate. Please back your statement up with relevant international legal precedents or treaties and not your own assumption, this is wikipedia and we need to contribute only verifiable facts. Thank you. As for your suggestion of bringing back "retrocession", that has already been discussed and decided that it is innappropriate for that is a Chinese position and thus violating NPOV principle.
Just for the sake of argument and to respond with your reasoning. Please refer back to the discussion above how "assuming" sovereignty is absolutely illegal and the ROC could not have acquired Taiwan in 1945 for Japanese formally renounced the rights of Taiwan in 1951. Japanese could not have done that if Taiwan was not still in their possession. Military occupation and annexation cannot constitute sovereignty transfer. The ROC government is exercising rights over Taiwan not much different than US exercising rights over sovereign states such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay(see Boumediene vs. Bush of 2008). Taiwan can be administered by the ROC under any shape or form, but the ROC has no rights to make changes to Taiwan's territorial status without the consent and power of the people of Taiwan. Your focus on "de facto" over "de jure" is an understandable point, but ultimately invalid for it is against fundamental international legal principles. China has not signed SFPT because they were not in capacity, but that does not mean the SFPT that is agreed by the world and deposited into UN as valid treaty is not in effect. Not to mention, Republic of China has already endorsed the validity of SFPT in Treaty of Taipei and being a member of the UNPSC should definitely abide by the SFPT. Lack of protests from other countries on ROC's position does not mean it is OK. when Japan renounced the rights of Taiwan, Taiwan became a limbo cession with no clear ownership of Taiwan by any other countries, then the only ones who can and with capacity to protest against the ROC government position would be the people of Taiwan. And they did protest. 228 Incident in 1947, the consequent independence movements under ROC government repression, and now it is an accepted political ideology to be advocated on Taiwan. So, I would not say nobody protested against the ROC government's position.Mafia godfather (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
First, you're arguing something based upon legal principles, which is fine. As I pointed out, arguments revolving around the SFPT and such are certainly not fringe. However, as I pointed out, legally or illegally, Taiwan was retroceded to the ROC. That is an undisputable historical fact. And it is the fact that has the greatest bearing on the current controversial political status of Taiwan. Therefore, the emphasis should be upon what happened de facto. Since the talk page is not a forum, I won't get into further arguments about various legal principles here (the gory details are at legal status of Taiwan for all interested.) Ngchen (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not arguing, I am stating fact. Taiwan as a retrocession to ROC is a POSITION taken by the ROC, it is NOT a historic fact. Please go back on top and see our reasoning, and the other users have agreed to not revive it. I would hate to repeat something you can just read for yourself. Can you show me one credible NPOV source that verifies the retrocession of Taiwan to ROC? You can probably only find it on ROC government web site, which would violate NPOV guideline. Retrocesion deals with returning of a property via transfer of rights, at one point did Japan return Taiwan to ROC? Certainly was not mentioned in SFPT, the final legal binding settlement between the Allied Powers and Japan. Many facts happened base on legal principles. I am not stating something argurably true, I am stating something actually true. Mafia godfather (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the retrocession was illegal. That is one of several mainstream positions, and I respect that. I am saying that, for all practical purposes, Taiwan was retroceded, legal or not. After all, doesn't the ROC run Taiwan as its own territory (fairly or not) these days, and hasn't it been so since 1945? Can you please point to the section that supposedly showed some consensus against describing the territorial changes? I read through the stuff, and I don't see any consensus that developed, and anyway, consensus can change. And BTW, the NPOV rule requires that all significant points of view be fairly presented, including views which one disagrees upon. Ngchen (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not arguing that retrocession was illegal, I am stating the fact that retrocession never happened. The definition of "retrocession" is "To cede or give back (a territory, for example)". Taiwan was never given back to ROC by Japan, the only reason why ROC was in Taiwan in the first place was to establish military occupation on Taiwan and accept surrender on behalf of the Supreme Allied Commander Pacific per General Order Number One. See discussion above on the details. No treaties or any directives from either side indicated there was any actions of retroceding Taiwan. "Retrocession of Taiwan" is a unilateral claim by the ROC and nobody endorsed that position except maybe China, and China does not even recognize the ROC. It is not just illegal, it is also not factual.
The concensus was reached between two disputing parties when DCTT offered to have it be rephrased to "ROC took control of Taiwan..." and I concurred. None of the 4 parties that engaged in the dispute objected to it. The ROC has run Taiwan as its own territory since 1945, and it is within its rights to do so per Laws of War and being the only government on Taiwan after it has become a limbo cession, the ROC has rights or even obligation to continue administer Taiwan until a native government is established to supplant it. It is also OK to govern the people of Taiwan as its nationals per the Treaty of Taipei. However, nothing was ever decided on territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, whether the Japanese gave Taiwan and Penghu islands back to China or to someone else, so no retrocession has ever occured. By the guidelines of NPOV, "retrocession" being a position claimed only by the Chinese would certainly not pass; however, ROC "took control" of Taiwan is something everyone can agree on and does not fringe NPOV guideline. It encompasses the POV of all, verifiable, and undisputedly true.Mafia godfather (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've started an RFC below to obtain additional opinions. In your view then, what exactly would be an illegal retrocession? I am afraid that attempts to fudge this issue are producing weaselish sentences. Also, let's face it. The ROC considers itself a fully legitimate government, not something that's to be supplanted by a "native" government after a while. And the ROC does not consider itself an occupying power. FWIW, I know countries such as Russia and Kampuchea fully consider Taiwan to have been retroceded, so it would be wrong to ignore that (also non-fringe) view. Finally, let us not forget that Wikipedia is to describe what's verifiable, which is sometime not the "truth." Ngchen (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)]

An illegal retrocession? There is no such thing. Because retrocession by definition means to give back a territory, if it has been "given back", then that means it is legal and valid. You cannot rob someone and say he gave you back. In my view regarding Taiwan, there is no retrocession. The ROC got to Taiwan under General Order Number One and established military occupation on Taiwan, I do not consider that illegal for it is perfectly within ROC's rights to do so. However, as we know from Hague Convention Laws of War, military occupation does not constitute sovereignty transfer, sovereignty transfer can only happen legitimately after a peace treaty that concludes the end of war. ROC is among the original signatories of the UN and they ought to know better, and they do. Whatever ROC considers its self as is not important because that is entirely ROC's own claim, just like the PRC claims bunch of things including Taiwan. If we take ROC's position and making it a fact in the fact box, then that is a direct violation of NPOV guideline for it is only supported by the ROC. It is also not "verifiable" from a neutral and credible site for none but ROC or political sites out there support such view. The most you will get is ROC taken control of Taiwan. You will not see "retrocession" for it is the mainstream view of the world that status of Taiwan is still undetermined while they fully support there is but one China. I understand Russia's position on Taiwan, but Kampuchea? Mind you that when Taiwan's territorial sovereignty was renounced by Japan in 1951, Kampuchea was not even around. They are in no position at all to make valid determination on Taiwanese sovereignty. Mafia godfather (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
We're going to have to disagree then on whether there can be a putative "illegal" retrocession. I am afraid you don't fully understand the neutral point of view rule. Basically, if there are contradictory yet mainstream schools of thought X, Y, and Z on any controversial issue, then the rule is that we should accurately and fairly present all sides X, Y, and Z. We should not imply that X is correct, and that Y is wrong because of whatever reasons. We also should not, in my opinion, try to obscure the fact that the dispute exists through the use of ambiguous language, per the weasel words guideline. Now, whether we like it or not, the facts are as follows: (1) "China," be it ROC or PRC, considers Taiwan part of its territory per the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, etc. etc. (2) The ROC has de facto treated Taiwan as its own national territory ever since 1945, and runs the place as its own. (3) Taiwan Independence supporters dispute the validity of any sort of incorporation of Taiwan into China based on the SFPT's ambiguity, as well as the claimed lack of consent of the locals. (4) Foreign powers have often tried to remain silent with regard to whom they consider Taiwan's "rightful" sovereign, although examples like Russia and Kampuchea exist who recognize "Chinese" sovereignty over Taiwan. My point is that there are, at least two schools of thought (there was a retrocession/there was not or was only an illegal retrocession) on this issue, and that both need to be presented to maintain neutrality. As I noted previously, readers interested in the gory legal details can find them at legal status of Taiwan. It's too bad the RFC hasn't yet provided outside views so far. Ngchen (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ngchen, you do realize that when it comes to fact box, the NPOV rule is more like No POV instead of all POV, right? We only put what is undisputed correct in fact box due to its limited space and the purpose of it, if you want to bring out your little dissent views that is contrary to the mainstream, you can explain that in the main article with the notation of whose position it is. In this case, "retrocession" never happened in fact, but claimd by the ROC, so if you have any beef about it... put it in the main article. I have responded all your points that you just repeated here below. Kindly review and retort down there. Mafia godfather (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so how about phrasing it as "de facto retrocession of Taiwan?" with a asterisk and footnote noting that the legality of the action is disputed - details at legal status of Taiwan? You seem to believe that the "mainstream" view is that there was no retrocession. I disagree, mainly due to the existence of the de facto exercise of sovereignty all these years, and the lack of protest "Country XXX condemns and denounces the attempt of territorial aggrandizement by the ROC" type statements. The "no retrocession" view, as pointed out by other editors, is held only by a substantial fraction of Taiwan independence supporters. My proposed scheme would add but one to two lines of text to the box, so it would not be unwieldy. Ngchen (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ngchen, the thing is, there is NO retrocession, de facto or not. I just do not know why can't you see beyond that? Let me break it down for you again... Don't worry, there will be NO legal mumbo jumbo below, just basic logical reasoning and English language:
A. Retrocession by DEFINITION of any dictionary is "To CEDE or GIVE BACK (a territory, for example);". Retro- is Latin prefix for "backwards", and "cession" is "A ceding or surrendering, as of territory to another country by treaty." So, in order for a "retrocession" by definition to occur, country A must GIVE territories belonged to Country B before BACK in form of a formal agreement or TREATY. We clear on this so far?
There has been no actions from Japan to GIVE Taiwan back to China or ROC. Technically, ROC never owned Taiwan prior to the Japanese era, but since ROC was a successor state of Chin Empire, it is OK to say ROC = China at the point of Cairo Declaration and signing of Japanese Instrument of Surrender and ROC did have the capacity to accept territrial sovereignty transfer of Taiwan if the allies ended victoriously. If Japan actually did give Taiwan back to ROC per Cairo Declaration, then it could be considered "retrocession".
B. the existing fact box contains revision made by DCTT stating that ROC has CONTROL of Taiwan and Penghu islands. This is de facto and de jure true, the ROC does in fact have control of Taiwan as the administrator of Taiwanese sovereignty. I have no problems with that being a FACT. Whether or not the ROC OWNS the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan belongs in the discussion in legal status of Taiwan, where they can have all the time in the world to debate on whether it is Taiwan trying to get independence from ROC or it is trying to establish an independent state to supplant the ROC government. It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that Japan NEVER gave back Taiwan to China or ROC in ANY TREATIES. (Note that legality of Potsdam and cairo declaration being referenced by JIS have been replaced by the SF Peace Treaty). Therefore, by definition mentioned in section A, retrocession NEVER happened.
C. Legal status of Taiwan mainly deals with the controversy around ROC's relationship with Taiwan, not whether or not retrocession really occured. The article is about if China owns Taiwan or not. Even though the ROC's retrocession claim is used by the ROC government as a REASONING for arguing in favor of their position, but it is not a FACT. Here on this article of Second Sino-Japanese War, we are trying to put the FACTS in the FACT BOX. Not ROC's claims, Ngchen's claims or anybody's claims. As what the Legal Status of Taiwan page clearly written: "In practice, sovereignty over Taiwan is exercised by the Republic of China." Such fact is clearly expressed in our factbox now.
I honestly hope I do not need to go even simpler than what I have said above. Because I do not know how to go simpler than that.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I dispute your assertion given in part A. It is by no means clear that a treaty is needed to de facto give/get something. So, the other line of reasoning using Potsdam->JIS can be interpreted as Japan giving Taiwan back. Maybe you're not that familiar with the term de facto which implies that something that is "in fact" true, although it may well not be within the letter of any set of laws (hence the disputed legality). I am pointing out that as a factual issue, the ROC has taken over Taiwan in 1945 and has run it as its own territory ever since. It has treated Taiwan as "retroceded" ever since. Sure, opponents complain about the ROC having acted illegally, but de facto Taiwan is controlled by the ROC, and de facto is owned by it since it acts as the owner without any substantial continued protest by other states. Ngchen (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sighs. I guess I also need to inform you a bit on history as well... Since retrocssion by definition means what I have already said in A. We all know that it was an intention of the Allies to give Taiwan to China should Japanese lose the war as we can see from the JIS, an expression of intention is by no means an ACT of the intended action. From 1945 to 1951, Japan had sovereignty of Taiwan as the world sees it and the Japanese made no "de facto" or "de jure" attempt of giving Taiwan back to China. I know very well what "de facto" is and I think you need to look up dictionary on the DIFFERENCE of "give" and "get. Retrocession has to do with GIVE, not GET.
An important matter such as settlement of territorial disposition normally requires a signed and ratified treaty, especially for the biggest war of the history of mankind. In fact, the original draft of SF Peace Treaty indeed clearly stated Japan's action of returning Taiwan, the draft stated "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the islands of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands[.]" Intention of retrocession of Taiwan is VERY CLEAR. The record of this draft may be obtained from memorandum from Hugh Borton to Charles E Bohlen: Draft Treaty of Peace of Japan, State Department Decimal File No. 740.0011 PW(PEACE)/8-647 CS/W, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (August 6, 1947) Memorandum, Background of Draft of Japanese Peace Treaty, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (Jan 30, 1948). The language was removed from the treaty due to the fact there was no one single legitimate China at the time of SFPT signing, and it was the decision of the world to leave Taiwan status unsettled. No retrocession happened and that is an undisputed fact. You can argue that ROC has taken over Taiwan in 1945 and has run it as its own territory ever since. You can even argue that It[ROC] has treated Taiwan as "retroceded" ever since....But the position of ROC is simply a claim and not a representation of a fact, and that should never be in the infobox. Does the ROC have control of Taiwan? Yes. Does the ROC exercise de facto sovereignty over Taiwan? Yes. Was Taiwan "retroceded" to ROC? No. Why? Because Japanese never GAVE BACK(please PLEASE look up the dictionary definition of GIVE and GET) Taiwan, the ROC government has occupied Taiwan as its own territories since 1945. Sure, ROC got to control Taiwan, and that is what we have in the infobox, but did Japan give Taiwan back as a retrocession? NO.
A "de facto retrocession" would be the Japanese give Taiwan back to ROC with a clear unilateral statement, and the ROC accepts it without entering into a signed and ratified treaty to formalize this. Kind of like I tell everyone that I gave you $100, you took it and never acknowledged that you have received it. So, if the SFPT kept the language "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the islands of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands[.]" , then ROC would be having de facto retrocession today with de jure retrocession belonging to PRC since PRC is the successor state of ROC. Thank the Lord, the Japanese never endorsed or even agreed to this when they sever their ties to Taiwanese sovereignty. The retrocession language was removed from the peace treaty so retrocession never actually occured. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I am going to declare a unilateral truce here for other editors to comment, per the RFC. Let's see what the rest of the community thinks. Ngchen (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's be serious about it

  • User Benlinsquare, let's call spade a spade. The article I posted is a serious stuff:
  1. 為抗戰三周年紀念對時局宣言. Everybody knows that 宣言 is a Manifesto, such as Communist Manifesto, every word, every sentence, down to every dot/slash, !, ? were to be checked again and again, to avoid any possible error. Terms like 萬歲, or 千山萬水, or 狂姦三千次, or 成千上萬, or song 一万个理由, are all 形容词, adjectives. Whereas in that article, 大小一萬餘次英勇戰斗 is a clear cut statement, no if or but, no more and no less. There is no imagination to be drawn from it, 10,000 plus heroic battles, this Plus can be plus/minus say a few hundreds. Definitely not more than a few thousands.
  2. This Manifesto came from 中國共產黨中央委員, the Chinese Communist Central Committe, which is the highest political body in China, even today.

Like you said:

One can speculate, but it is often that someone recording history will have little twists. But large numbers generally represent "many"; in such cases, the numbers are never taken seriously.

User Benlingsquare, please do not advocate the idea that 中國共產黨中央委員 are never taken seriously. 中國共產黨 is the paramount ruling body of China, the home of 13(or is it 15?) billions human beings, many of them are either our friends, or our relatives, because our parents, or grandparents all came from China.

  1. Please do not call other editors 娘们 or 爷们, because it implies sexual preferences, which is a big NO NO in these modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the plus can say +/- a few hundreds, but I just don't see how 萬 cannot be interpreted as wordplay, as emotive language, similar to the use of "a billion" or "two billion" or "ten billion" in English? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are invalid and so far you've provided nothing to back up your claims. Don't try to argue the same thing here, I thought we're done with the section above. Blueshirts (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, let's have a look at the examples you have given a few clicks up. 愛河一萬餘尾魚: are there literally "over 10,000 tailfish" in the Ai River? Who counts them? It is a guesstimate, there could be 200, or 4,000, or 20,000, you never know; how is this different to the CCP's "over 10,000 battles"? From the link, "高雄市愛河中游治平橋附近今天發生大批魚群暴斃" - clearly, we're not sure on the exact numbers, as there are 大批魚群暴斃 - a "large number of fish dying". 一萬餘戶停電: since this is conducted by something that is regulated, once can argue that there is "over 10,000", as this is actually counted (you can count households, by census, etc), but this is a special case. This one instance does not seal any fate. 一萬餘支注射液: this is also counted. 一萬餘件西沙出水文物: link currently broken, will try again later. 一萬餘戶受害: The "一萬餘" acts as the expression for the actual estimated number, which is 12,000 victims. It doesn't matter if the actual number is higher or lower. 偷稅一萬餘元: again, this is something that is counted, that's what accountants and financial brokers do for a living. No one counts CCP battles. You need to find examples which are on par with the original CCP statement. Your first example was a good one; we've established that "一萬餘" can be used as figurative language and as something literal, depending on the context it is in. Sometimes, as with the fish one, "一萬餘" is used figuratively; others, such as the tax evasion one, is fixed because there are solid figures. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
*Sigh*, so that's 1, for now. As for 2, you have to prove that "normal Chinese syntax" is what you claim it to be first. And please reply like a gentleman this time, so I feel inclined and happy to co-operate with you. I'll stick a lovely tag up the top here, just it case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Oh my god, you've just proven MY points. You've not established they are used figuratively, because None of them are used figuratively, because they all mean one ten thousand plus. Not twenty thousand, not thirty thousand, and certainty not tens of thousands. They don't mean the figurative tens or thousands glorious battles of the CCP. None of them counted maybe hundreds or thousands, and exaggerate for dramatic or propaganda effect and say "tens of thousands", which in Chinese is not 一萬餘 either. And for the fish example I posted, don't try to obfuscate even more and say funny things like 10,000+ is a "guess" and can come from a number as low as 200. And if it's not one ten thousand plus but 20,000, they would have said "two ten thousand plus" (兩萬餘, get it?). Are you saying the Taiwanese environmental agency is manned by a bunch of retards? That they'll just screw it up when it comes to important environmental assessments? And this is absolutely no different from the CCP, because the CCP doesn't just say retarded things, and believe it or not, they have plenty of historical archives that provide the number of how many "battles" they fought, and of all sizes. Just like the Kuomintang, which fought in exactly 22 set-piece battles, plus thousands more "small" engagements. Are you saying all these organizations are put together by a bunch of retards who can't count, don't have their own historians, and would just throw up random numbers for dramatic or comedic values?

Alright, screw it. To hell with WP:COOL, it doesn't work. You just don't get it, do you? Read between the lines. You shouldn't be getting excited, you've just proven how stubborn you are. I ain't compromising further. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Especially for something as important as the manifesto of the CCP that Arilang posted, do you think they would "lie" and "exaggerate" and provide further fodder for the Kuomintang to accuse that they weren't fighting? No! Of course not, the CCP said exactly one ten thousand plus engagements of all sizes to show that they were actively fighting and tied down 40 to 50% of the Japanese like they claimed, and that's why they needed weapon and ammo. Hopefully this fulfills Arilang's request to put the debate in historical context, not just Chinese syntax.

I have you given you FIVE DAYS since my question and this is the best you've come up with. First you dodged my questions for five days, and then when you've got no arguments left, you finally just went ahead and caused more misunderstanding of my questions and the links I posted and then confirming most of my examples except for the fish one which I explained above. Honestly, this is getting nowhere. Blueshirts (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"First you dodged my questions for five days" - not all of us have lives adhered to Wikipedia. I have to earn to eat. I have to study to earn more later on to eat more later on. Wikipedia doesn't put the food on the table. Wikipedia doesn't get you a diploma in anything. What are you trying to argue? I'm pretty busy dealing with the real world to be worried about coming here to meet up with you and have a chat about sentences and dead fish; that's the least interesting thing I find. Time means nothing, WP:There is no deadline. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure. You had been editing this non-stop, and when I tried to edit this page I got multiple "edit conflicts," and that was right before I posted the links and questions. Then you waited for five days, thinking long and hard I'm sure, and came back with this. And don't forget, you were the one suggesting for some WP:TEA, yet you kept coming back for more. I've said this before, but who are you trying to fool? Are you going to address my main questions or continue picking the irrelevant parts and answering those? Blueshirts (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 愛河一萬餘尾魚, just how do you know that it is not your own interpretation? You complain of WP:CIVIL, but "Yeah sure" seems a bit like a bite, doesn't it? You wonder why there was profanity a few sections up, but I wonder why you have this attitude, that doesn't really seem to be changing. Think long and hard? Who are you to me? And talk of "edit conflicts" is utterly irrelevant. Assume the good faith of mine in sharing my truthful explanation. How do you know what I've been doing those days? As for WP:TEA, I've made myself loud and clear that I will use it if I feel that it is absolutely certain and apparent that you will use it too; you have not proven to me that you will reciprocate. Anyway, back to the main point: you prove your number 2 with a linguistic or academic text of any form, that "一萬餘" can never, ever be used as an idiom, as you have stated. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing a man would be so sensitive as to be ticked off by a simple "yeah sure," so let's just skip talking about your feelings, because it's not relevant. Back to the topic regarding the dead fish in the river, and only reply to this please. First of all, don't even try to suggest that it's "my interpretation". Because it means exactly what it means, 一萬餘尾魚, one ten thousand plus/minus fish in the river, that's it. Again, it's NOT a figurative piece, because first of all, the syntax is incorrect for a figurative expression. Second, it's a serious environmental piece published by a newspaper. It's not a celebratory piece saying "hey, we got "tens of thousands" of fish in the river, must be a great season." One ten thousand fish plus/minus, simple as that. It's not MY interpretation, it's not YOUR interpretation, and it's NOT open to ANY interpretation. It is what it is, straight forward and to the point. Please DO NOT suggest that we all have different interpretations, because we don't, not for something as simple as this, and we can't afford to muddle this up. I've done all my arguments using clear and direct reasoning, but you on the other hand, have never produced ANY results using the exact term the CCP used for your "interpretation." But you've used the fish example (which I posted to prove my point no less), which hopefully I have dispelled any misunderstandings. Blueshirts (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems meaningless quarrels are finished. Now let the reference speaks. CCP annouced that their troops had roughly more than 10,000 combats against the Japnese by July, 1940; and here is a source I found from The statistical forms of 8RA, ISBN 750652290

Year Number of combats
1937.9 ~ 1938.5 638
1938.6 ~ 1939.5 2,051
1939.6 ~ 1940.5 6,936

It's part of a table in page 355. The combats were mainly guerrilla warfares, but a combat is a combat.--MtBell 22:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. This adds to 9625 incidents. See, the CCP engaged in exactly "one ten thousand" plus/minus battles, guess who has the last laugh, ha ha ha. Blueshirts (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

War of resistence or SSJW

Traditionary, especially in Mainland China, it is 抗日戰爭, which is the name used in zh:wiki. To fully understand this Chinese 抗戰, is very diffcult for your everyday reader, and if user Benlisquare is easily satisfied by info provided on high school text books, then fair enough; but then he would have a hard time trying to explain SSJW to Japanese students who only read Japanese high school text books.

Like I had stated before, I am fortunate enough to have the ability to read Chinese text, and I like to dig deep into history, especially Chinese Communist Party History, 中共党史, especially s:zh:作者:中國共產黨中央委員會, and after reading all these Chinese Communist Party Official Papers, my conclusion still is, CCP did not do much fightng against the Japanese; not only that, CCP did spend majority of it's time and effort fighting the KMT; not only that, CCP treated KMT as enemy NUMBER ONE , all the time trying to sabotage, to incite riot, industrial action(general workers strike), students demonstration, street rally, etc, etc. All these accusations can be backed up by s:zh:作者:中國共產黨中央委員會, if reader care to read them.

Were these CCP actions be taken in the World War II European Theatre, CCP, hence Mao Zedong, would have been subjected to military court, and charged with treason. I welcome user Benlisquare to read s:zh:作者:中國共產黨中央委員會, then we shall continue the discussion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC : Territorial Changes

Should Taiwan be described as being retroceded to China after the war, or should it simply be described as having control transferred? Reasons for describing it as retroceded are (1) the ROC (Republic of China) proclaimed such, without any protest by any other power, and (2) the ROC's actions were consistent with the Potsdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender, and (3) (disputed) in a practical (de facto) sense, the ROC has treated Taiwan as its own sovereign territory ever since. Reasons for opposing describing it as retroceded are (1) it never was retroceded since no treaty specifically notes it, and (2) many states never recognized the claimed retrocession. I also have concerns that attempts to "fudge it" are producing sentences full of weasel words. Ngchen (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not control transferred. No control was "transferred" to ROC, the ROC simply initiated control upon receiving General Order Number One section A to go to said territories(including Taiwan and other non-Chinese territories) and accept Japanese surrender. (1) ROC's own claim is protested by the native residents of Taiwan who have the legal rights of Taiwan per UN charter article 2 which the ROC sworn to abide by. The people supported such view was later suppressed and repressed by the ROC government for decades. Since Taiwan was a limbo cession and belonged to no other powers/countries, they naturally had no capacity to protest against ROC's claim.
(2) Potsdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender do not supercede the legality of San Francisco peace Treaty. Potsdam or Cairo Declaration were referred by the Japanese Instrument of Surrender as guidelines to spell out the demands of the allies. The Instrument of Surrender is merely a to-do list for Japan to follow in exchange for cease fire and temporary suspension of war. The peace treaty is the ultimate legal binding agreement between Japan and the Allied forces on the demands as described by the JIS. As soon as SFPT comes into force, the obligations Japanese had were hold fulfilled, and the settlement marks the end of hostilities and beginning of peace. Therefore the JIS and all declaration used as reference become obsolete and nullified. It is elementary legal concept. Why Ngchen thinks that is a valid reason is totally beyond me.
(3)ROC government asserts de facto control of Taiwan and it is recognized by the world, but the ROC's ownership of Taiwan is not recognized by anyone but the ROC its self. In fact, the ROC even acknowledged its lack of ownership of Taiwan when the ROC legislative yuan questioned YEH KUNG-CHAO for not having Japanese agreed to include Taiwanese territorial sovereignty transfer in the Treaty of Taipei. Yeh testified to the congress that it was simply not Japan's position to give away something it no longer owns. If retrocession has been done, then it would have been mentioned clearly on the final legally binding treaty and the ROC legislators would not have asked those question. Retrocssion by definition also means "To cede or give back (a territory, for example)", no such actions were done by Japan to return Taiwan to China or ROC. For an important matter such as settlement of territorial disposition normally requires a signed and ratified treaty, especially for the biggest war of the history of mankind. In fact, the original draft of SF Peace Treaty indeed clearly stated Japan's action of returning Taiwan, the draft stated "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the islands of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands[.]" Intention of retrocession of Taiwan is VERY CLEAR. The record of this draft may be obtained from memorandum from Hugh Borton to Charles E Bohlen: Draft Treaty of Peace of Japan, State Department Decimal File No. 740.0011 PW(PEACE)/8-647 CS/W, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (August 6, 1947) Memorandum, Background of Draft of Japanese Peace Treaty, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (Jan 30, 1948). The language was removed from the treaty due to the fact there was no one single legitimate China at the time of SFPT signing, and it was the decision of the world to leave Taiwan status unsettled. No retrocession happened and that is an undisputed fact. If Ngchen sympathizes with ROC's obvious self-pity, then I say post that opinion on a political forum, but not on wikipedia.
Ngchen believes the fact ROC has de facto control over Taiwan and has unilaterally claimed Taiwan has been retroceded to them is enough to make "Taiwan retrocession" a fact to be included in the fact box of the article. What Ngchen suggesting here is basically a justification of territorial annexation, an action considers to be illegal according to prevailing international laws and a direct violation of the Stimson Doctrine. That would also mean territories in de facto control of the rebels in countries all over the world would also be legal and justified. That would be ludicrous. As an opponent of the word choice of "retrocesion" in this article in reference to Taiwan, I strongly support the retention of the word "control" for it is something everyone can agree and would not raise too much controversy. Wikipedia is becoming a popular source for people to get good information and I would hate to see it being spoiled by arbitrary views but not verifiable facts from NPOV sources. Mafia godfather (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Requests for comment is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside (emphasis mine) input. It seems You have already given input on this matter previously. feydey (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It was just a minor clarification.Mafia godfather (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
What do reliable sources say on the matter? Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the source, its date, and the political leanings of the source. Due to the highly charged political nature of the question, reliable sources give differing de jure interpretations of what happened. As to what they say, de facto, I will confess that it's a 'very' interesting question. Ngchen (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV would probably demand that all significant views found in reliable sources be included in the page. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
But that kind of detail should be in the article on the political status of Taiwan, not here. Here I think a simple conclusion that the areas came under ROC control is more than enough. Blueshirts (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who believes that the Treaty of Taipei pretty much settled the issue legally, but one who also believes that consensus should govern (without undue use of weasel words), this is what I'd suggest (or something close, perhaps more elegantly-worded if someone can do it): "After the end of World War II, ROC troops took control of Taiwan and Penghu pursuant to the understanding with its other allies. Subsequently, Japan and the ROC signed the Treaty of Taipei in 1952, which, according to the parties, settled the issue of ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, although some Taiwan Independence advocates contest the legality of the Treaty of Taipei to this day." --Nlu (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your view toward what should go into the infobox? Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest, with regard to Taiwan only, a relatively simplistic (and accurate, no matter what view you take as to legality) "Taiwan and Penghu to ROC" be sufficient. However, that isn't completely it, since that's not the only territorial adjustment made. "Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria to ROC" may be sufficient (without involving Mengjiang — since the Mengjiang situation arguably occurred after the war had started, as was the case with various puppet regimes.) --Nlu (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I support using the wording of the Cairo Declaration, which states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China". Blueshirts (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Stolen" is not NPOV. Plus, at the time that Japan took those territories, the ROC did not yet exist. Further, that was only a declaration, and there were many other points of the allies' declarations that were simply not implemented after the war. Finally, the words of a declaration cannot replace treaties -- and such words were not used in the Treaties of San Francisco and Taipei. (Not that I feel that it should be incorporated even if they were in the Treaties of San Francisco and Taipei -- the Treaty of Versailles included gratuitous blames on German war responsibility that would, clearly, by Wikipedia standards, not be NPOV.) --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In particular, I don't see (at least a major part of) Korea as being "free and independent" as called for in the Cairo Declaration. And the Cairo Declaration called for the unconditional surrender of Japan, which did not occur. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me clarify that last clause; I realize that the Japanese proclaimed that the surrender was conditional, but in implementation, it was not, in my opinion, unconditional. I realize that that might not be a consensus or majority view. --Nlu (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the wording I'm interested in is "restore", not "stolen." Personally I think retrocession seems fine because that's what the ROC uses. But since there have been more and more lawyer talk suiting to one POV regarding the word, I think something along the lines that the areas "returned" to Chinese rule or Chinese rule was "restored" should suffice. Blueshirts (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that "restore" or "return" is problematic since that begs the question of whether the Republic of Formosa was a legal entity or not, unnecessarily. I still think that it is more NPOV to simply state that the ROC received Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria as a result of the war. --Nlu (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
For comparison (and as another alternative), the articles Alsace-Lorraine uses "revert[.]" --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It's none of Alsace-Lorraine's business here. I think it's a better way if you can prove your wording is widely used in WP:Reliable sources. Now I strongly support Blueshirt's proposal as the word restore is directly used in Cairo Declaration, which was issued by China, UK, US, USSR, and accepted by Japan.--MtBell 23:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Restoration is an approperiate expression as Cairo Declaration asserted. Plz also notice that neither Russia nor China signed Treaty of San Francisco.--MtBell 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
But the ROC signed the Treaty of Taipei. Which incorporated the terms of the Treaty of San Francisco. Or are we going to ignore the Treaty of Taipei, too? If you do, you are more or less going to have to take the position that there is no document, as a matter of international law, that supports ROC sovereignty -- a position that I don't buy. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, but I have yet to read any document that stated that Japan accepted the Cairo Declaration, as opposed to Potsdam, which was explicitly referenced. Further, in any case, a surrender document cannot trump a formal treaty signed by Japan -- rather, two formal treaties. Not to mention that, contrary to what you stated above, the USSR was not involved in the Cairo Declaration. --Nlu (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. For Treaty of Taipei, it was invalidated by Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China, and has no power over China. In this treaty, Japan reconfirms 8th term of Potsdam Proclamation and therefore accepts Cairo Declaration. --MtBell 04:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an organ of the PRC government. That the PRC does not accept the Treaty of Taipei does not mean that it was not a valid treaty. Indeed, by citing the PRC position in support of your proposed wording, you are effectively proving that the wording is not NPOV. Further, the PRC did not exist at the time that the ROC took control of Taiwan and Penghu, and therefore however the PRC views the status of the takeover is completely irrelevant. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
And I just looked at the text of the Japan-PRC treaty that you referenced. It does not refer to the Treaty of Taipei, either explicitly or implicitly, and certainly does not say that it was void. Nor does it reference either Potsdam or Cairo. In any case, NPOV has to be observed, and that means that it's not "this wording has to be used because the PRC government says so." --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Concerning the invalidity of Treaty of Taipei: On September 29, 1972, Japanese Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ōhira announced that the Treaty of Taipei was ended as it had lost its meaning of existance. （大平正芳：「日華平和条約は存続の意義を失い、終了した」）
  • Concerning how Japanese government announced accepting Cairo Declaration:
  • The wording "restoration" should be used because it has WP:Reliable sources. It is clearly mentioned in the formal treaty between China and Japan. Could you show any stronger documents supporting your claim? --MtBell 05:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Uh, NPOV? Your view effectively means that, by implication, that ROC is illegitimate and PRC is legitimate, which clearly violates NPOV and violates consensus on Wikipedia. (See, in addition to WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language). I note that you continue to refer to "China," "China," and "China," ignoring that at the time that the Treaty of Taipei was signed, Japan recognized the ROC government as a legitimate government. (Note, I am going to avoid stating "the legitimate government of China.") That Japan abandoned that position later is immaterial; a treaty was effective as soon as it was signed, and Japan's unilateral abrogation -- assuming arguendo that it was an abrogation -- could not itself make the Treaty of Taipei invalid. That Japan hasn't reasserted sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu is a clear indication that, in effect, the Treaty of Taipei was executed and valid.
And as I pointed out and as you failed to refute, NPOV has to prevail over the language of any treaty, communique, &c., itself. Otherwise, the World War I-related articles would clearly have to blame the Central Powers for the war -- because that was what was stated in the Treaty of Versaille and other peace treaties involving the Central Powers. You can yell as loud as you want to about what the PRC thinks; all you are showing, each time you yell, is that the view is not NPOV.
Show a little respect here. NPOV means that you can't expect your PRC-centered view to prevail over everybody else -- regardless of how much the Beijing authorities would like you to believe that Beijing's world view should prevail over everybody else. --Nlu (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I will add this: in light of the fact that you (MtBell, that is) clearly have no intent to even hear out what other people with different views have to say — and I am not asking you to agree, just to listen — I am finding that this discussion is unproductive with regard to you. You are clearly uninterested in consensus, which is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. This attitude may work in the PRC; it doesn't work here. The PRC also says that a highway from Fuzhou to Taipei will be built. That doesn't mean that it will be built. --Nlu (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, yelling. I'm sorry you really sad that. It seems you are losing control of yourself and diversing the topic. It will do no good to a productive discussion. Let's keep focused.

The NPOV policy requires all sides be equally expressed only if these expressions are supported by WP:Reliable Sources. Above I quoted the Sino-Japanese treaty in 1972 as a solid reference to the claim that Taiwan was restored to China, and it was also a response to your doubt whether Japan accepts Cairo Declaration. However, I didn't find if you have made any effort to respond my request that you need show your claim, that Taiwan was transfered but not restored to China, is clearly endorsed by any reliable source.

Furthermore, I never said a word on the status of RoC and PRC. And it does not matter on this issue which government is installed to China or Japan. Please stop diversing the topic and remove all your impolite personal comments, if a productive discussion is really your intention. --MtBell 14:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

When you claim that an international treaty is not only not a reliable source but is invalid on the say so of the PRC government, you're not discussing in good faith.
And I am not arguing on whether Taiwan and Penghu (and Manchuria) were "restored" to ROC I am taking the position that NPOV requires a more neutral wording. --Nlu (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean, in any sense, a single neutralized or weasal wording. Instead, all major views based on reliable sources should be equally expressed. The word restore should be used in the article since it's recognized by both countries. The section of this article can not achieve NPOV without such a major point of view. Again, please just present your ideas about the topic and stop imposing on me any arguements I've never talked about. Thank you. --MtBell 15:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
And I did. I pointed out that the Treaty of Taipei supports a more neutral wording as it does not use the same kind of wording -- which I'd dare to say was motivated by the political realities of the time that Japan and the PRC signed their communique, not by historical realities -- that the Japan-PRC communique used. That you disregard the Treaty of Taipei as invalid (and, by implication, the ROC's authority to sign it as invalid) does not mean that it should be considered invalid -- any more than the Treaty of Shimonoseki (which the Treaty of Taipei declared null and void by implication as it declared all "unequal treaties" as null and void) is to be considered invalid for the purpose of historical discussions. You can't simply announce that you're simply going to disregard an international treaty and then say that you are, in fact, willing to listen to contrary views.
And your "recognized by both countries" (Japan and PRC) again ignores how the ROC sees things (and thereby, not being NPOV) or how any other country would view things. As you yourself pointed out, the USSR did not sign the Treaty of San Francisco. It was also not involved in the Cairo Declaration. Your implicit view that ROC is not a country (by ignoring its views, as well as the views of the parties therein) is not NPOV. But even more problematically, you are viewing PRC and Japan as monolithic entities, where the government's official view is the only acceptable view. That sounds a lot like the Beijing regime's world view to me (that whatever the Leading Comrades say has to be accepted). That's not how it works or should work in Wikipedia. The fact that the Obama Administration says that health care reform is good for the country (which, in my opinion, it is, but that is beside the point) does not mean that "the United States" (monolithically) views health care reform as good for the country, and certainly, even if that were to be the case, that does not mean that people in other countries cannot view it differently.
Disregarding the Treaty of Taipei also creates legal problems even from the PRC point of view. The Japan-PRC treaty was not signed until 1978 -- so what was Taiwan's legal status between 1945 (or 1952, when the Treaty of Taipei was signed) and 1978? Surely you are not planning to take the position that until the Japan-PRC treaty was signed, Japan continued to hold sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu?
You have to get off the "whatever the PRC says goes" position here. It is not logically or legally consistent. Either the ROC had the legal authority to sign the Treaty of Taipei (in which case it was a legal treaty whose wording has to be considered, albeit not conclusively) or it did not (in which case, legally, the transfer did not take place until 1978 -- which I'd consider an absolutely ridiculous position). The Japan-PRC treaty did not legally or actually effectuate the transfer of control to "China" (whether it be the ROC or PRC or both) in 1945, and therefore cannot be said to be an instrument that is relevant to the discussion of the results of the war, which ended in 1945, not in 1952 or 1978. --Nlu (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused why you are talking about Obama here. And it is the third time you force your ideas on me. Please get back on track. WP policies don't care about the what should be of the editors' thoughts of the world, neither yours nor mine. What really matters is what are recorded in reliable sources. The importance of the Sino-Japanese Treaty in Beijing and the Cairo Declaration is that they serve as reliable sources of using restore to describe the historical event in 1945. Whether Chinese or Japanese government rules in wikipedia has nothing to do with our discussion. You can cite Treaty of Taipei as a reliable source to point out that the status of Taiwan was not clearly mentioned in that document, but you cannot use this reference to reject using restore in this article. The historical fact that China and Japan recognize Taiwan as restored to China should be included in the text. And such complete expressions contribute to NPOV. --MtBell 19:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you are coming off the position that the Treaty of Taipei should be ignored. That is, basically, the crux of the matter. As you finally are acknowledging, "restore" is just one of the views. As long as it is clearly stated as just one of the views, I have no objection to mentioning it in the article.
As to the infobox (as was mentioned above), a neutral wording should be used, however, since the infobox should not be cluttered. Therefore, a "lowest common denominator" approach should be used there.
In any case, there are plenty of sources on any further contrary views -- contrary to yours and mine -- about the legal status of Taiwan, cited in that article, that this article should mention those views as well. I consider the Treaty of Taipei as valid when signed. That's apparently not your view, and that's apparently not the view of many Taiwanese Independence advocates, whose views should be acknowledged for the article to be NPOV. But the infobox itself should be factual. "ROC took control of Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria" is factual (as that is exactly what happened). Whether that was legally valid and whether it was a "retrocession" or not depends on the view of the viewer. I believe that it was, but that is not the only view. --Nlu (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Misrepresenting my words will not help you in disccssion.
I am ever opposing any attempts to use weasal words instead of fair expressions based on reliable sources. Such position is never changed. I find you still insist a weasal expression in the infobox. My suggestion is: ROC reclaimed Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores according to Potsdam Proclamation.
And, I have to remind you: you never show any regret of distorting my words and personal attacks on me. Such behavior greatly degrades yourself. --MtBell 20:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how I distorted your words; it is you who insisted on ignoring the Treaty of Taipei, and there is no way that I can accept it as a reasonable position. Are you going to ask me to write a self-criticism next? --Nlu (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
yelling is not a polite word, how do you think? And please remember, I never commented on if Treaty of Taipei was valid when it was signed. --MtBell 15:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The way it is now is perfectly fine, as it is proven that retropcession of Taiwan is merely Chinese position and has not actually happened. No treaties after San Francisco Peace Treaty has or can make modification to Taiwan's territorial sovereignty. ROC took control of Taiwan and Penghu, we should just leave it as that.Mafia godfather (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The WWII article also used "reclaimed" as in "KMT retreated to the reclaimed island of Taiwan...", so one possible modification is "ROC took control of the reclaimed islands of Taiwan and Penghu"DCTT (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Sino-Japanese_War/Archive_4&oldid=1109005885"