[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:George H. Kerr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Well, I was about to creat the page on Formosa Betrayed. However, I did it in an easy way: copy and paste without major modification. Therefore I was noted that entry was infringe of the copyright regulation. That's the reason I put an extralink. It's your call to put an link here or restart the page. I do not know how long usually it takes to have the old entry deleted and start over again.L&m3d 01:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can start a new version on the temp page and that will be moved once the copyvio is deleted. --Jiang 05:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed

[edit]
In general, his works pertaining to Taiwan and China are not considered viable historical records, but rather well-written political science essays.

Formosa Betrayed is still a well cited historical record. I would like to see where this statement is based from. --Mababa 02:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I changed it to simply labeling the book as an influential political science book. A book that makes "sharp rebukes" (and it does; I grabbed the PDF off a link) can hardly be classified as a history book. Political science is a much broader and more accurate description of what that particular volume is. And as my history professor liked to point out, poly sci books are not viable historical texts, generally because the heavy amounts of bias can often skew what data is presented. This is similar to how, even though the New York Times is a respected newspaper, you wouldn't cite their editorial page for factual content. This isn't a put down of Kerr, merely an addition to clarify where he stands in terms of academic classification using the criteria of historians. Xuanwu 23:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I have again made a few changes. I changed the "bias against China" into "stance against China". Kerr was againt both China. THis part was given. His position could be neutral but not biased. Thus, I made such a change to make it neutral. I also removed the political science description and thus the description was left without attributal description. I am certain that you are not putting Mr. Kerr down, however, I wonder the evidence that his book is not viable as a historical record. You gave us the definition of political science book quoted from your history professor but have yet given us your evidence that Kerr's Formosa betrayed has been dismissed by the general academics as political science study and not one of those factual historical bibliographies. By removing the political science description, we left the book un-classified and thus more neutral. I also wonder who are so called Sinologists that challenge Kerr's status as a historian. If there is any, are they the majority or they are the few?Mababa 01:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Classifying it as "political science," however, is more informative. Specifying the genre is not a violation of neutrality. Said classfication does not contradict Kerr's own statement of purpose and, again, agrees with the wording already present in the article. Historical texts, as a rule, do not present "sharp rebukes." If you want a specific list of some Sinologists who would not consider this book a viable primary source, I can get in touch with some other historians I have worked with as well as get their impressions. I've already presented my own impressions from working in the field, but if you want me to bring in others, I can understand. However, I don't think a list of people who say this book is a work of political science is necessary, since knowing what the intent of the novel and its content should be sufficient to understand its proper classification. And, as I said, specifying the genre of a book is not a POV so long as there is a clear logical basis for said classification that is generally agreed upon by others with authority in the subject. Xuanwu 21:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it is your definition to classify this book as political science book. I agree with your classification. But I failed to see the link between that classification with this book.

I wish to see actual proof that it is classifed not as a historical book but as a political science book. I would be happy to change the wording into "sometimes classified as political science book instead of historian book due to sharp rebukes in the book." Again, I wish to see source to prove that the majority call it political science book. Without it, I suggest we call it a book or a historian book.

I agree that a list is not necessary. I just want to see proof that if it is a prevalent view. If it is, it that hold by the majority? Thanks for your comment.--Mababa 05:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hated by Mao?

[edit]

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

Date conflict regarding publication of "Formosa Betrayed"?

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George H. Kerr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_H._Kerr&oldid=1246293501"