Talk:George H. Kerr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	George H. Kerr is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Okinawa (stub), Ryukyu Islands Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Sangaria (soft drink) Shaken Takefuji Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwanese politics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the politics of Taiwan. If you would like to participate, please join the project
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 link to Formosa Betrayed 2 Removed 3 Hated by Mao? 4 Date conflict regarding publication of "Formosa Betrayed"?

[edit] link to Formosa Betrayed

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)

[edit] Removed

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)

[edit] Hated by Mao?

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)

[edit] Date conflict regarding publication of "Formosa Betrayed"?

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)