Talk:Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1874)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theJapanese invasion of Taiwan (1874) article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tok-a-Tok died prior to the Japanese Expedition, and his tribe were opponents of the Botan, himself having opposed the murder of the Ryukyuans that led to the expedition. His temporary replacement, Chief Issa/Esok/Esa (伊厝), who was leading in lieu of his son's (probably Tsului (朱雷))) adolescence, was the one who negotiated a peace with Cassel within the first days of the expedition, and tribes under his control supported the Japanese in their war against the Botans. I'm unsure who the Chief of the Botans was, but it certainly wasn't Tok-a-Tok. With Tok-a-Tok both being dead at the time of the expedition, and his tribe being peaceful with the Japanese during it, I thus feel his listing as Commander isn't at all appropriate.
I also feel as though the figure of 27,000 'Paiwans' seems to incorporate all sixteen southern tribes, rather than just the Botans who the Japanese actually opposed, and is thus a gross exaggeration with the Botans having numbered a few hundred at the most. Likewise the inclusion of the Qing Dynasty as a belligerent is also incorrect, as the Qing never engaged in combat against the Japanese. If the Qing are included for their claims of sovereignty over the entirety of Taiwan, it goes in the face of the entire rationale of the expedition being that the Qing lacked control over the Southern tribes, which was in a sense proven both by Japan's success in the expedition and the Qing bringing Southern Taiwan under it's control by force in the aftermath.
Given the information above, I've removed Tok-a-Tok as commander, corrected the belligerents to the Botan tribe specifically, and removed the strength of the Botan until I can dig back up an estimate from my sources.
For source on Tok-a-Tok opposing the murder of the Ryukyuans, seeForeign Adventurers and the Aborigines of Southern Taiwan, 1867-1874 by Robert Eskilden,pp. 170-171For source of Tok-a-Tok's tribe negotiating a peace with Cassel, see idibpp. 205-206UncleBourbon (talk)05:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I previously edited this article a year or two ago, I added Douglas Cassel as Commander, only for him to be removed. The reason for the removal apparently being he was foreign adviser.
I disagree with this removal, as Cassel somewhat exceeded his role as adviser and proved important to the expedition; as stated inEskildsen, Robert (2010)."An Army as Good and Efficient as Any in the World: James Wasson and Japan's 1874 Expedition to Taiwan"(PDF).Asian Cultural Studies (36):45–62. Cassel commanded the 100 man advance party, was leader of negotiations with Chief Issa, and established a battle plan that would ultimately be employed during the decisive Battle of Stone Gate, even if extemporaneously. He also was in a position to argue with and change the mind of Noriyoshi Akamatsu regarding his attacks on allied native villages.
I feel these four acts taken together warrant his placement under Commanders/Leaders. I also find it odd that the Japanese Commanders should have Japanese flags next to their names if there are no national flags to distinguish from; some of the only other infobox military conflicts to place national flags next to individual Commanders are ones involving commanders of multiple nationalities.
I am open to discussion, however wanted to state my reasoning.UncleBourbon (talk)10:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very surprised after i compared this article with it's Chinese version which has more reliable citations. This English one is way over simplified and to some degree, very twisted. In my opinion, it is written this way for the political purpose of supporting the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan, by giving the impression that there was no sovereignty claim of Taiwan by Qing China, which is not ture. Also, the author or whoever edited last seemed to have replaced all claims by Qing over Taiwanese aboriginals and changed to Taiwan as a whole, ignoring that Taiwan as a political unit is very different from just Taiwanese aboriginals, not mentioning aboriginals only represent less than 3 percent of the Taiwanese population. This event in the history involves independently Taiwan, Taiwanese aboriginals, China, Japan, Okinawa. Over simplification here can really change the meaning of the events through the whole thing. Since this is an article describing a historical event, I strongly oppose the behavior of twisting the history of this event for the purpose of favoring any political side between two parties in Taiwan, or between mainland China and Taiwan, or between China and Japan. I have edited a few sentences in the article by adding a little details in it. It is still very misleading. However, since my English is not very good. I hope someone else can help finishing editing it with more balance and respect of history. Thank you.Chadsnook—Precedingundated comment was added at10:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
It seems bizarre to me that we should have an article on the 1874 expedition and not on the 1871 incident which spurred it. I realize that if such an article were to be created, there could be considerable overlap, but even so, as far as I am concerned, it is the incident which is the primary topic, having spurred numerous debates within and between Peking and Tokyo, as well as not only this expedition, but sovereignty issues in (over) Ryukyu and contributing to the 1879 decision to annex Okinawa entirely by Japan and to abolish the semi-independent Ryukyu Kingdom.
I have begun a discussion as to whether or not this article needs be created, and what it should be titled,here. I invite anyone interested to contribute to the discussion in a calm, distanced, professional, objective, and mature manner. Thank you.LordAmeth (talk)20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also within the scope of WikiProject China. Please add it on the top.Chadsnook (talk)10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Japan had for some time begun claiming suzerainty, and later sovereignty, over theRyūkyū Kingdom, whose traditional suzerain had been China."Can we get a citation for the statement that China had been the traditional suzerain? It sounds biased but for all I know it might be 100% true.Readin (talk)22:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onJapanese invasion of Taiwan (1874). Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)10:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
