Talk:Chiang Kai-shek
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiang Kai-shek article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Just for the record
Well, admittedly I'm very stupid, but I'm very happy with such an honourable condition.
Furthermore, my cousin Gwendolen is a goose, AND the preceding statement is NOT true at all, inasmuch as either I haven't got a cousin or, if I have one (or more), her name (their names, respectively) is not Gwendolen. (That's important from a merely epistemological point of view. Because. Good. Oh, well! That's the end.)
Now, please don't call me a conspiration theorist, but what about Chiang Kai-shek and Donald Duck? In the context of the cold war, one had to know Walt Disney.
No, I'm not mad. Just joking.
God bless us all.
Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease, doooooooooooooon't remove this! Thanks. Zoologywithreason (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Pro KMT bias
This article appears to me to be biased in favour of the KMT and Chiang. Areas which are particularly bad include how Chiang 'let the communists get away' after the battles which led to the long march. The article fails to mention how the local population were overtly hostile to KMT forces after years of severe corruption. It fails to mention how the communists courted local popular opinion by imposing compartively strict control on its own forces in the vicinty of civilians. The artical fails to elaborate on Chiang's failure to hold onto control of China. If he actually was a leader who acted in the (misleading) way that you have described then WHY did he lose when he had vast support from the US, control of the gold reserve and control of the army? I think that this article needs a few additonal paragraphs to explain and elaborate on the flaws of this leader. Buubacub, 11/9/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This guy looks like luigi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.193.18 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
^LOL forever at the above comment. But yeah, I think this article might have certain pro-KMT leanings. 69.29.70.155 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then, would you wish to make it pro-Communist or pro-DPP then? Hey, it's one way or the other, no middle ground in this matter. The truth is placed up there, and people say it's written in the form of "pro-KMT". Yeah, guess what, you write it another way and people'll call it a lie or say it's "pro-CPP" or "pro-DPP". Ever heard of the saying, "Damned if he do it, Damned if he don't"? Besides, I see that the issue has been long solved, the article has explained the complaints of the original comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah maybe it is a little too bias in favour of Chiang now 220.253.26.218 (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Content
The chinese version of this page has more information and content, specifically images. Shouldn't there be a way to merge it or expand the english?
- Yes there is! Undertake a translation yourself! DOR (HK) (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Problems
The standard of written English & grammar in this article needs to be improved Old Nol 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Chiang and Mao had a son, Ching-Kuo, and a daughter, Chien-hua (建華).
Not really a problem per se, but this sentence cracks me up.
Real problem: The death toll he is responsible needs to be lifted out of the legacy section. Killing people is not legacy. It's what the person did during his lifetime, so it should be placed in the biography (ie what he did) section.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- We've got 1 direct death accounted for in the "rise to power" section. Only 3,999,999 to go...
- The deaths need to be attributed to their causes. A "result of his rule" could mean many things and is too vague. Once this issue is settled, I think we can nominate this to be a featured article.--Jiang 10:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Jiang, my biggest issue with this article is that the amount of damage he did to the Taiwanese people throughout his dictatorship was barely even mentioned. 228, whether or not its proven that he ordered it (either way it happened under his leadership) was one of the worst things to happen to any people over the past 100 years. The way he oppressed people, almost erased the culture and language, made people disappear if they spoke up (not just jailed, but often kidnapped and killed) and there were many others. It's part of his legacy. This article makes him out to be a great leader instead of the murderer he was throughout his regime in Taiwan. I wouldn't object so much if at least this was much more well-pronounced. Its an affront to all those that were unjustly killed and jailed during his regime to minimalize it like that.AntiG 15:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- The emotive language that you have used here and in the article (which is a great deal why you were reverted) cannot be used in Wikipedia as it is not in a NPOV. I tried to address some of your additions in a less emotive and biased manner here. However, 228 is seldom associated with Chiang Kai-shek personally. It is associated with Chen Yi, the Kuomintang, and the army, but the man himself is not blamed for 228. In the confines of space, we cannot mention everything that occurred under Chiang's leadership. We can only mention things he had direct involvement over. 228 is not one of them. In fact, after he executed Chen Yi for an attempted Communist defection, he announced to the Taiwanese people that the execution took place because of Chen's misrule of Taiwan to score some political brownie points. This was actually believable. --Jiang 04:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- My view is somewhere in the middle. He wasn't around when it happened. However, Chiang instituted a culture in his government and army that allowed 228 to happen. His eventual acts during the White Terror Era showed that he really wasn't better than Chen in that regard. Perhaps more can be mentioned about the White Terror? --Nlu 05:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
CKS has now officially been blamed by an investigative group of scholars for 228
Put it in
- Define blame. Taiwan was in open rebellion in 1947. Of course CKS ordered troops there. But Chen Yi was in charge.
- External link no longer valid. http://www.president.gov.tw/1_roc_intro/e_xpresident/e_b_cha.html currently reports a 404.
Bob Jones University
Does the Bob Jones University honorary degree really belong in this article? I think not; it is designed to make him look like a religious fanatic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.130.233.171 (talk • contribs) .
Of course it belongs in this article. Any honors Chiang got are relevant to a profile of him. FDR July 17, 2006 21:30 (UTC)
this article is written by those who hate chiang
it seems that the article is written by those who donnot want to face the truth; it appears in this article that chiang was nothing but a stupid dictator ,even the photos of his wives are intentionally chosen to uglyfy him. please read the same article in wiki chinese if you can,he is generally honored by the chinese people as the brave hero who restablished the republic and it's him who saved the poor taiwaineses who dream about‘independence’from probable massacres by the communists.
- You are free to edit the article, I would guess. Also if you have pictures of his wives which do not "uglify" him quite as much, go ahead and add them. If I am not mistaken, the chinese version of the article does not have any pictures of his wives (I cannot read the article in chinese, but I can look at the pictures there). Also, please sign your comments on talk pages. BigBen212 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- more than deleting the photos of the dear ladies that Mr.Chiang had divorced some 50 years ealier before his death, the entire article should be rewritten. Many english users are still victims of the lies that the US Department of State had told in 1950's ; these poor guys had tried their best to cover their naive leftist prejudice and the total disaster they have brought to china ,asia and the americans themselves. --81.64.111.224 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It may well be that the article is biased; most discussions of Chiang are. Still, I think the complaintants ought to establish some cred, for example by judicious editing of what irritates them most. Absent that, I'm taking the liberty of removing the POV/factual flag. --Cubdriver 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If it's biased, the tilt is slightly in favor of Chiang. The massacre in Shanghai in 1927 and even more significant, the persistent refusal to engage Japan from 1931 (when they really invaded) and 1936 is remarkable for its absence. And KMT minions, have the courage to sign your name. Huangdi 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Huangdi. Dear anonymous contributors, if you can, try to read the wikipedia articles in German or French for possibly more independent views. Sure the Chinese version will overrepresent KMT-leaning opinions as Wikipedia is blocked in the mainland and westerners don't care that much about this issue. I think General Stilwell, who is not supposed to be a leftist, had good reasons to dislike Chiang...--Tillalb 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
As a student of Chinese history, I have to agree with Huangdi and Tillalb. Very little mention is given the voluminous criticism of Chiang that appears in contemporary histories of the Chinese Civil war and American-Chinese relations. Stillwell, who proved to be correct in the vast majority of his opinions about Chiang, specifically that he neutered the KMT militarily in order to maintain his own control, are given no mention. I do not know why the "legacy" section only discusses how he is viewed in Taiwan, which, along with mainland China, is the place where he is most likely to be viewed with bias, be it positive or negative. Of course, it probably helps that this site is blocked in mainland China, so the majority of Chinese users are Taiwanese or expatriates. - OuHo 17:16, 28 July 2007
As a student of Chinese History, I agree that there is slight bias - in favour of understatement. No, the incredibly complex politics of Guomindang China are not discussed in detail, nor is the fragility and fundamental weakness of the party and nation discussed. It seems to be reminscient of a 1960s textbook I recall reading on the subject; quite compact and definite in its opinions, without much evidence to back it up beyond the force of opinion. I am sure that I am not the only one frustrated by our incapacity to edit this article for the better. -Wahee27, 8:44 22 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahee27 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
names
I've tightened and "Englished" this section. Actually, my editing is not nearly as extensive as it seems when one compares it with the earlier section; the software was evidently unable to cope with my combining two paragraphs into one. --Cubdriver 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
that pictures is ridiculusly big.
Its the biggest picture of a person i have seen on wikipedia. we dont need a huge elderly person staring at us while were trying to do our history note cards on him...
- The G'mo just wants to make sure you're not plagiarizing from Wiki! --Cubdriver 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Conversion to christianity
"To please Soong's parents, Chiang had to first divorce his first wife and concubines and promise eventually to convert to Christianity. He was baptized in 1929". It is absurd! Vess
how the hell do you divorce a concubine if your not married to the concubine?141.155.145.23 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, 'bout the concubines, it's really a misunderstanding. What people meant when they say "Concubine" about the chinese society is really talking about the multiple wives. Back then, men could have multiple wives, as in the case of Chiang, so technically, he was married to the "concubines". Liu Tao (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Which picture of Chiang Kai-shek to use
There has been a dispute on which picture of Chiang Kai-shek to use. The Copyright Act in Taiwan has the following provisions:
Article 9
The following items shall not be the subject matter of copyright:
1. The constitution, acts, regulations, or official documents.
2. Translations or compilations by central or local government agencies of works referred to in the preceding subparagraph.
3. Slogans and common symbols, terms, formulas, numerical charts, forms, notebooks, or almanacs.
4. Oral and literary works for news reports that are intended strictly to communicate facts.
5. Test questions and alternative test questions from all kinds of examinations held pursuant to laws or regulations.
The term "official documents" in the first subparagraph of the preceding paragraph includes proclamations, text of speeches, news releases, and other documents prepared by civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties.
Article 34
Economic rights for photographic works, audiovisual works, sound recordings, and performances endure for fifty years after the public release of the work.
The proviso of the preceding article shall apply mutatis mutandis to the preceding paragraph.
I, as an admin at Chinese Wikipedia, am unsure whether Image:Jiang Jieshi.jpg, much more frequently seen, qualifies as in the public domain while I am unable to determine when it was taken. Since Image:Chiang Kai-shek.jpg is in the public domain, I would prefer to err on the safer side to use a picture in the public domain even though less common but not to claim fair use.--Jusjih 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Funeral ceremony
"The state funeral ceremony is planned to take place during the spring of 2006." Spring of 2006 is definitely over. If there are any news, please mark those also in Chiang Ching-kuo, which still states: "The state funeral ceremony was initially planned for Spring 2005, but was eventually delayed to winter 2005. It may be further delayed due to the recent death of Chiang Ching-kuo's oldest daughter-in-law, who had served as the de-facto head of the household since Chiang Fang-liang's death in 2004." --Oop 17:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Central Plains
Battle of Central Plains (中原大戰) is not included in this article?
Should I add it? I can't seem to find the Wikipedia article for it also.
- Central Plains War has been around for quite a while. -- Миборовский 20:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
White terror?
I read the article but I think that it really doesn't give sufficient notice to how authoritarian his rule was. Isn't it a bit historically revisionalist/remiss not to mention by name the White Terror/228 Incident in the article? It would be like failing to mention Mao's Great Leap Forward.
I agree with this comment; this article has a definite slant to it.
Constants (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Very much a 1960s American one-page textbook summary. Of course, they had good reason to distrust the white man. All those US military personnel seemed to do in their spare time was get drunk and have sex. And occassionally commit horrific crimes, like that highly publicised incident where that Chinese girl was raped by a squad of US marines (in '44 I think). Gotta remember the horrific anti-communist and anti-guomindang purges on both sides too. So ridiculously many dead, in such a brutal affair. Ah, Jiang, one of the worst men for the job, but among the few capable of taking it on - at what cost to the people?
Chiang Kai-shek statues
For those who may be interested, the article for Chiang Kai-shek Statue has been listed for AfD for a few days now. When the article was originally nominated for deletion, it had no sources and only 3 sentences. The article has now been substantially expanded. Please vote if you have an opinion on whether to keep the article or not. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Help sniffing out a quote about CKS
Supposedly, Mao once said that "Mr Chiang is a true nationalist" (as in patriot and not KMT) when CKS supposedly ordered lighthouses on ROC-controlled islands in the South China Sea lit in order to guide PLAN ships to their destination to expel a landing force from some South-east Asian country that was claiming those islands for themselves. Truth? Myth? -- 我♥中國 05:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the original words were "蔣先生是重民族大義的人". Time should be the incessant naval skirmishes during the 60s, and AFAIK the lighthouse(s?) would be on Taiping Island (太平島)? -- 我♥中國 05:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Revising the "Losing China" section
It's very poorly written with some ambiguities. For instance, "Sometimes it gained cities that were of former Japanese troops which was a deeply unpopular plan". Not only is that a bad sentence, but its meaning is unclear - were these cities composed of only Japanese troops? How many Japanese were left in China? Some work is needed by someone who actually knows the history, unlike me - I gave it a little shot, but more work is needed 1337n00blar 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Two plausible explanations of what this is talking about:
- When Japan surrendered, CKS could not move troops into all occupied areas in a moment's notice. To prevent communist partisans from seizing control of these areas, CKS ordered Japanese troops in these areas to "maintain order" until Nationalist forces arrived to take control. It goes without saying that this was quite unpopular.
- In the Northeast, CKS used former Manchoukuo troops (ie. collaborators) to oppose the communists. (Can't say "fight" because they didn't really fight but just sat there to prevent the communists from moving in.) This was of course quite unpopular as well.
Both were true of the period immediately following the surrender, but whereas Japanese troops were dealt with accordingly collaborationist troops were incorporated directly into the army. This was sn especially unpopular, if efficien, move, like so many of Jiang's manouverings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahee27 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Name of article
Chiang's correct pinyin name is Jiang Jieshi. Surely the article should be named after the correctly translated name, even if the WG name is more common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.100.252 (talk • contribs)
- The official transliteration is Chiang Kai-shek, which is not even W-G. -- Миборовский 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- And, yet, amazingly, anyone with any knowledge of World War II, Asia, China, Taiwan or the KMT would instantly recognize Chiang Kai-shek (and, very few would recognize Jiang Jieshi). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- And... there is a redirect for Jiang Jieshi in case someone does search on that. Looking at the article I see 5 names mentioned. Which one is most correct? Really, the question is "which one is most likely?"
- When there are several possible names we just have to choose one for the title, and create redirects from the other possibilities. A good question to ask is "which name would an English-speaking person be familiar with?" Because that is an important question, as this is the English Wikipedia. Not many Western-educated people are going to search on 字介石 or 蒋中正, or the other possible ways of typing in the name. 行不行? Shenme (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
what about the cook?
Generalissimo Chiang was also a famous cook in his time. Anyone have some information to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.61.162 (talk) 08:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
- IIRC there is a book titled <<蔣家菜>> written by CKS's granddaughter. -- Миборовский 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
228 incident
Being an offspring of a "mainlander" and "Taiwanese" marriage, the 228 incident is argued and discusses over the years between my relatives and friends. Being educated in America and with a minor in Chinese history, there's a few things I would like to share with everyone.
First of all, 228 incident did happen. There's no official documentation of victims, so no one should put in writing the number of victims....only estimates.
The victims are not just "Taiwanese". The incident should be referred as any anti-KMT people. Many mainlanders "disappeared" in Taiwan because they were suspicious for being a spy for the communists. Also, please note that victims were not all "Taiwanese" or mainlanders due to political reasons. Some of my relatives (mainlanders) were killed by the peasants or the Taiwanese and they were merchants, not soldiers. My relatives (Taiwanese) also confessed to using objects and beating mainlanders, but denies killing anyone.....who knows.....
In all, I just want everyone to learn that 228 incident was a tragedy involving everyone....soldiers killing peasants, peasants killing peasants and soldiers killing soldiers (suspicious of being a communist).
The documentation of the mainlanders (both peasants and soldiers alike) is forgotten because most of the immigrants have no relatives. Most of the victims were simply erased from the registration book. Without relatives to remember their existance, the amount and extent of the victims suffered in this incident is unknown.
Finally, I would like to stress the fact that Chiang Kai-Shek was not directly involved in 228. There's no documentation that he ordered the troops to fire upon the people. There's a telegram in existance from him to the Governor of Taiwan to "suppress and restore order". After the incident, he executed the Governor of Taiwan for his action (massacre). With the above mentioned, we cannot label him as the "man behind the incident".
Raised in Los Angeles, I witnessed the Rodney King riot. Our president ultimately is responsible for all decisions made, but blaming him is like blaiming Chiang in this incident. I blame Chief Gates, and not the president just like I blame the Governor of Taiwan, not Chiang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.224.244 (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Infobox
The infobox lists his religion as Christianity. I don't know that this is an item that is usually included for biographies of non-religious figures, but even if it is, would anyone say that Chiang was anything more than a Christian by convenience? He was raised a Buddhist and kept this with him for the rest of his life, no? He did convert to Christianity in order to gain admission into the powerful Soong family, but I don't think he was profoundly religious; he certainly wasn't very forgiving. As to his nationality having the KMT/ROC flag icon and Taiwanese listed, I think it is a bit inaccurate. While he was, of course, instrumentally important in this government/de facto country, it seems that Chinese would be a better description of his nationality.AnthroGael 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Dariusisdaman link spam
This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dariusdaman - I am undoing his link spammage. John Smith's (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Spouses
CKS's first wife was Mao Fumei but then he later married Soong Mei Ling. Why in the infobox is Mao Fumei is not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.81.91 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 March 2008
Chiang Kai Shek married Meiling.Song in Dec 1st,1927. why we have n't seen her Name in the list about his wife ??
Meiling Song was bornt in Match 5th,1897,and die in Oct 23th,2003.she is also a great woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackytian (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Chiang Kai-Shek's Alma Mater
Could anyone please check and verify this as I keep hearing from Profs who studied the Late Qing/Early Republic and several articles that Chiang Kai-Shek DID NOT graduate from the Imperial Japanese Military Academy(IJMA).
Instead, they all said he attended and graduated from one of the Imperial Japanese Military prep schools for prospective IJMA cadets. He did not, however, pass the examination that would allow him to gain admission to the IJMA.
This is one frequent mistake that a lot of my Profs and those who studied this period have been frustrated with as it is derived from conflating his attendance at a Imperial Japanese Military prep school as attendance and graduation from the IJMA when they are actually not one and the same.
72.231.14.67 (talk)Exholt —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
K, so who doctored up the Chiang Kai-shek photo into colour?
The B&W version of the photo looks better, IMO. The colour version looks a bit tacky. --Daniel Blanchette (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The coloring looks nice enough but I'd rather have the original. The coloring is done by [User Militaryace]. Blueshirts (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
unreferenced claim
Chiang had numerous brushes with the law during this period and the International Concession police records show an arrest warrant for him for armed robbery.
This claim is probably forfeited , even the chinese communists have never talked about this. so deleted should this be.--Poiuytrezapoiuytreza (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Poor article in general
There are quite a few issues with this article, some of which have been discussed previous.
- 1) The english is atrocious here. There's numerous spelling mistakes, strange syntax errors, and grammar mistakes.
- 2) Article is HEAVILY biased.
- 3) Chiang's negative aspects are underplayed.
- 4) Very little is referenced. The communists tricked airlifters to "plant the seeds of rebellion"? Prove it.
- 5) We should at least mention that the pinyin for his name.
Volcanon (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I can say the same exact things about Chen and Mao's articles. Anyways, do you even know what makes an article biased? It's biased when it contains opinions, which I have not yet noticed, if you have noticed opinions in the articles, please post. If you want to put something on that's negative about Chiang, then put it into the discussion, or just put it on, but don't make it too opinionated, or else then it's biased. And you want proof? How the heck do you expect everything to be cited?! I can go say the same thing about every single other articles in Wikipedia! And last, his name is mentioned in pinyin. It's at the very beginning. Liu Tao (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
1)you should say the same thing about Mao's and Chen's respective articles, the entire encyclopedia should be objective; and most importantly one does not justify the other. 2)the article is indeed full of "opinnions", opinnions sadly have the bad habbit of not being very well backed up by citations 3)yes, citations on every single little statement. 4)yes, every article in wikipedia SHOULD have citations! 5)hooray for his name in pinyin. 6)grammar in the article is atrocious, i think its pretty clear chinese armchair historians (obviously biased) were the ones who wrote this article about one of the worlds most prominent dictator (and yes, i think Mao was a dictator just as bad, so dont bother naming Mao or Chen in response).190.160.142.65 (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- You say it's full of opinions, give me some examples. And before doing so, check the standard definition of "opinion" first. An opinion is like "Chiang is a evil man" or something like that. Just because the article doesn't go around criticising Chiang doesn't mean that it's biased. Encyclopedias are not supposed to criticise people, you want criticisms, go to the forums. I currently see no opinions in it, everything is stated and CAN be backed up. Nobody has the time to go and find sources to back these up, you can do it if you want, but it doesn't mean that something that is not cited has to be deleted. If that's the case, then it's the same with other articles. I don't go around criticising other articles and saying that they are biased like you are because I simply don't do it. It was merely an example of what I could do. You want to criticise Chiang, then criticise him, but make sure you do the same for other articles too :D. What, can't do it because you only hate Chiang but not other politicians? Wow, then I guess you shouldn't be doing these criticisms then. Liu Tao (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Harry Dexter White
I don't think we have to use the "accused" language for him anymore. He was a Soviet agent. 74.7.106.81 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)PK
And just how is it that it is PROVEN that White was a Soviet agent? Please to present your case. DEddy (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting consensus on addition of ROC flag
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg/220px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg.png)
Discussion welcome on Yes or No to add the flag. I will give it 3 days time, hopefully we should reach some sort of consensus then.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no objection, I shall proceed in adding the image.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Requesting consensus on addition of Chiang Kai-shek and son Chiang Jin-quo
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Chiang_Kai-shek_and_Chiang_Ching-Kuo_in_1948.jpg/150px-Chiang_Kai-shek_and_Chiang_Ching-Kuo_in_1948.jpg)
Discussion is welcome.Arilang1234 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no objection, I shall proceed to add the image.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
signing the United Nations Constitution
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Chiang_Kai-shek_ratified_the_Charter_of_the_United_Nations_19450824.jpg/250px-Chiang_Kai-shek_ratified_the_Charter_of_the_United_Nations_19450824.jpg)
Sorry sorry
I made some mistake while working on Chiang Kai-shek#Names, can someone help me to put it back please.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Chinese Collaboration with Japan
Wang Jingwei was the leader of the Chinese collaborationist government and Chiang's chief rival, he needs be mentioned in this article's 'Wartime' section. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
GCB
I can find no reference outside of Wikipedia (except text copied on other websites) that Chiang Kai-shek was ever appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB). A search of the London Gazette archives only mentions him in narratives of military campaigns. Has anyone a specific reference for his GCB? CS46 23:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
White Terror
The presidency in Taiwan section looks very much like a white wash. Why no mention of the White Terror? Readin (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it was mentioned, or is that only in the White Terror article? Liu Tao (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Presidency
There has been an ongoing edit war between two editors who do not have sources and who appear to believe that the POV they support is the only POV that matters.
In truth, Chiang was a president de jure and a dicatator de facto. But truth is not the standard for Wikipedia. The standard is NPOV and Reliable Sources. For now I've replaced "Dictatorship in Taiwan" and "Presidency in Taiwan" with "In Taiwan" since both edit warriors seem to at least agree on that part. If someone wants to add "Dictatorship" or "Presidency" back in, find a reliable source and provide the reference. If reliable sources are found for both, then both must be included per the WP:NPOV policy. Readin (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Come on! Need a "source" to prove he was president? Otherwise I could agree with you. Overall, presidency is NPOV. Dictatorship is probably something that needs substantiating, so having both is tolerable. However, replacing presidency with dictatorship is pure POV and perfectly OK to ABF. HkCaGu (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Need a "source" to prove he was president? I figure it will be pretty easy to find. :-) Readin (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Readin, Generalissimo Chiang resumed his President duties on 1 March 1950 in taiwan, so it is just says the fact, Remember : NO NEED PUSH YOUR POLITICS EVERYWHERE Eeeeeewtw (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Cold War articles
- Unknown-importance Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Chinese politics articles
- Top-importance Chinese politics articles
- WikiProject Chinese politics articles
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class Taiwan articles
- Mid-importance Taiwan articles
- WikiProject Taiwan articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Unknown-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Methodism work group articles
- Unknown-importance Methodism work group articles
- Methodism work group articles
- B-Class Christianity in China work group articles
- Unknown-importance Christianity in China work group articles
- Christianity in China work group articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles