Talk:Chiang Kai-shek/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

/archive1

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.--Ji ang 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.

i am sorry you SOB, but chiang is an evil stupid dictator, and a coward too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.150.177.40 (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

"I don't think is multiple wives is one wive many concubine. Concubine doesn't have the status and the power a wife has in the family." Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.237.52 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2009 (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.

-- Миборовский 03:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

After Chiang Kai-shek got his first wife to step aside, he still had a concubine. He then got the concubine to release all "rights" to him with a $5,000 payment. In 1921, he then married Ch'en Chieh-ju who was 15 or 16 years old. She became his second wife. He actually first fell for her when she was 13 and had tried to force himself on her sexually. In 1927, he then placed her aside to forge an alliance with the Song family to further his political ambitions and sent Ch'en to the U.S. at the urging of Meiling Song.

In her memoirs, Ch'en Chieh-ju complicates matters by calling Chaing's concubine "a concubine" early in the book but then calling the concubine "a wife" later in the book.

Ch'em goes into great details about how, and why, Chiang set aside his first wife and concubine, and then later how he set her aside. A lot of this has to do with how Chiang's mother interfered with the first wife's behavior, as was common in China; and how Sun Yet Sen's widow plotted to replace Ch'en with her sister, Meiling. The whole tale would make a good soap opera for daytime TV. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2010 (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)

There is an element of truth to this, but I can't say how strong it is. I remember reading that the British constabulary in the International Settlement of Shanghai had a file on him, though specific claims about what he did and how often he was caught sound abit too unsourced for my liking. It's abit of an obscure reference, though, and I'm having trouble finding it in my sources. Oh, well.Ferox Seneca (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (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)

Wikipedia has an extensive discussion of the case against Harry Dexter White. Granted, Wikipedia is not a reliable source ;) but the evidence includes the testimony of Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, the VENONA decrypts, and documents from the Soviet archives. I don't myself entertain any reasonable doubts about his guilt. Yaush (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting consensus on addition of ROC flag

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

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

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)

I appreciate that there is a 1942 Time Magazine reference that says "King George conferred the Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath on Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek", but there is no reference to this in the London Gazette archives and, since the London Gazette is the official publication that list all British honours and awards, I still doubt that the GCB was actually awarded. I suggest that we need at least one other reference to this; I am not, however, joining the edit war. CS⁴⁶ 11:47, 10 May 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 or Dictatorship

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)

Asking for a source is not pushing politics, it's strictly following NPOV and reliable source rules in order to end an edit war. This is particularly not pushing politics because I knew ahead of time that it will be a lot easier to find sources for the statement I disfavor rather than the statement I favor. Chiang was a dictator. Anyone who looks at his record can see that. It is the more accurate description of what he did. But given that he was dictator of an entire country, that country will have lots of documents calling him what he said he should be called, "President". Finding an official document from Taiwan that calls him President should be trivial and I'm disappointed that no one has bothered, but instead people have resorted back to edit warring.

Here are a couple of sources from Taiwan's GIO to get you started. A Brief History of Taiwan, [1] If you want to call him "President", then do at least a little bit of googling. I found these on second search with search terms "President Chiang Kai-shek site:gio.gov.tw".Readin (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I got one question, what's wrong with saying "Presidency in Taiwan"? He was the President, and he resumed power whilst he was in Taiwan. You should know that there was a time when he wasn't the President and have only became the President shortly before retreating to Taiwan, don't you? Liu Tao (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just reread WP:V again. It says things that are challenged or likely to be challenged need to be sourced. I believe his presidency is simply "unchallengeable". (OTOH, "dictatorship", of course, can be.) I also believe that "presidency" itself is neutral.

Aha, sadly President can be challenged as well, people percieve things different then us. Anyways, you wanna know why it should be "President"? Because that was the title. Also, he was within the grounds of the Constitution, even though you could say the KMT controlled the government, still, they followed the rules. He was officially known as "President", not "Dictator". Liu Tao (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You had an edit war. That doesn't count as a challenge? Readin (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said, both can be challenged. Liu Tao (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I responded to your first paragraph before reading second. Readin (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that Mobutu Sese Seko's comparable section is called "One Man Rule" rather than "Presidency", and Mussolini's is titled "Building a Dictatorship" rather than "Premiership", and that Idi Amin is also referred to as "military dictator", it is clearly inconsistent to treat CKS like any kind of legitimate leader (those were the first 3 dictators I could think of, and they all get called dictators). Also, not only is the word "dictator" not even mentioned, but the general political repression and the oppression of the native Formosans is severely downplayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.244.84 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's because nobody's challenging it. And he was a legitimate leader, each time he assumed office, it was done constitutionally (He was voted into office by the National Assembly). Sure, he bypassed the 2 term limit, but that's because it's during wartime, which the constitution allows for the bypass of the 2 term limit. He still had to be voted in by the National Assembly though, no exception. Also, do you even know what the definition of a "dictator" is? Here's the definition given by wikipedia:

"A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power with military control but, without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch."

Based on this, there are 2 things to look for, 1. holds sole and absolute power; and 2. assumes power with military power. Chiang fits neither of this, each time he assumes a term as the President, he did so by being elected by the National Assembly. Nor does he hold sole and absolute power, the Legislature, National Assembly, Judicial, Control, and Examination still functions, they just happened to agree with him on most of the actions, not a surprise as they're all of the same party. Liu Tao (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked up the big three murderous dictators of the 20th century (Stalin, Hitler, and Mao) and found that none of them had a section labeled "Dictatorship of...". Mao has a section called "Leadership of China". I also looked up Kim Jong-il and he has a section called "Ruler of North Korea". There doesn't seem to be set standard. At the moment, we have reliable source for "Presidency" and no reliable source for "Dictatorship". So we use "Presidency". Readin (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The infos on how US spies made KMT lose China smells like fringe theory...

The first part of the story is correct and generally accepted on why KMT lost the war - U.S. suspended aid to Chiang Kai-shek for much of the period of 1946 to 1948, in the midst of fighting against the People's Liberation Army led by Mao Zedong.

Is what after this passage that gets fishy...

In the 1950s, allegations of assistance to communist interests in China surfaced involving the withholding of funds for the stabilization of the Chinese currency by certain U.S. officials, including senior U.S. Treasury Department officials and alleged Soviet spies Harry Dexter White, Frank Coe, Solomon Adler, and others, in order to destabilize Chiang's Nationalist government during the Civil War.

This article tells me the KMT lost the civil war because bunch of Soviet agents withholding money? And what about the offical story from US government that they withhold money to make KMT more "democratic"? Why is this not mentioned in detail here?

And all those officals listed, are they really spies, or the result of Red Scare witchhunt?

Finally, even if those officals are proven spies, are they working for Soviet or the Chinese? As of today, historians are not sure whether Soviet and Chinese were working togather or against each other during Chinese Civil War, just because those officals are Red does not mean they work for the Chinese.

The connection between bunch left leaning US bureacrats and Communist winning the war suggested by this article just lacking substance.

Jim101 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the part about US "spies" trying to destory Chiang, per policy WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Unless someone can produce evidences that those US politicans were in direct commnication with Chinese Communist Party during the civil war, or had a price put on Chiang's head, it is pure speculation. Jim101 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the information. It had two different citations, one of which was a fairly recent monograph published by the Yale University Press. You can't go about removing reputable cited information. Blueshirts (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Jim101 overstates the claims made by the passage. It doesn't say "the KMT lost the civil war because bunch of Soviet agents withholding money". And it doesn't say whether the mentioned parties were actually spies, it says there were allegations. It is well documented that there were actually communist spies at high levels in the U.S. government before, during, and after WWII, and it is also well known that there were quite a few well-educated people who had sympathy for communism. Also, there was debate as to whether Chinese communists were as dangerous as or evil as their soviet counterparts and whether they were "real" communists. Given all this, it doesn't seem hard to believe that a few people with authority to make a difference in favor of the Chinese communists chose to do so. But of course "not hard to believe" doesn't mean "true", and that's why we have the sources. Whether or not these are fringe or are being given undue weight is something you should address with the sources being referenced. Do you have reason to believe that the sources are not reliable or that the information is being taken out of context and exaggerated?

Except the reputable source is named Decoding Soviet Espionage in America to prove that American "spies" helped Chinese Communist to win the civil war...while people are not even sure if the Soviet and Chinese are actually working together on the Chinese Civil War. If that connection is not established, then the citation is taking established facts entirely out of context.

All I know from the citations is that there are some American politicans have been working with the Soviet, and voted "no" on helping KMT against Chinese communists. If there is no strong evidence to point out that Chinese and Soviets are working together, then the entire thing about US spies helping Chinese to win the civil war is misleading and inaccurate information within the article.

If you have reliable source that exactly says Chinese Communists used Soviet intelligence to directly withhold aid to KMT then I apologize for my rash action.

Finally there is the problem WP:UNDUE. The offical US government's reason for withholding the aid is shorter than the spy theory in the article, which is completely unjustified.

Jim101 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"...while people are not even sure if the Soviet and Chinese are actually working together..." If an American spy is helping the Soviet Union because they believe in communism, is it a difficult to believe they would also help the Chinese communists for the same reason even if the Soviets weren't encouraging them to? Is it difficult to believe that in researching for a book about Soviet espionage an author would learn about other communist espionage? You're making a lot of assumptions to imply that a source is incorrect. I don't know whether the source is correct or not. But the information is certainly plausible, and we do have a source. Readin (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You are also making assumptions on "researching for a book about Soviet espionage an author would learn about other communist espionage". how can you be that sure? Do you have a copy of that book to say that a book about Soviet spy also covers Chinese spy too? We are not here to make up facts, just because it is possible does not make it so. Wikipedia is not a place for original research.

I think we are off topic here. We are talking about how Chiang lost China, not how many communists infltrated US government. The above citation, when put in correct context, means communists agents in congress made Chiang lose the war. If we can't establish those congress man has connection to China, does it matter whether they are commie or not? In fact, by explicatly stating those congress man are commies this article automaticly implies that those communist agents has working relationship with China (not Soviet), which is misleading and inaccurate.

If an American spy is helping the Soviet Union because they believe in communism, is it a difficult to believe they would also help the Chinese communists for the same reason even if the Soviets weren't encouraging them to...I guess you just don't know that China and Soviet tried to kill each other during Cold War, communism has three branches (Chinese branch, Soviet branch and the European branch) that won't reconcile.

Jim101 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My final thoughts on the entire affair and why this timbit of information is misleading for readers:

1) The fact that those politicans are communist agents only matters if they have direct working relationship with CPC, otherwise they are no more use to the Chinese than uninformed voters of 1945 (leaning left and stupid).

2) Expliciatly states "communist spies made aid to Chiang impossible" (under the context of civil war) automaticly means those spies are under order from Beijing, no matter how you suger coat it with words like could, possible, allegedly, etc.

3) If the citations said that Chinese used Soviet intelligence to block aids, then say "X believed Chinese used Soviet spies to block aids" with reference. Otherwise, judging by the current wording, it is pure speculation based an selective facts of the citation.

4) Stalin hated Mao, and Mao is suspious of Stalin. Just because China and Soviet are communist countires does not mean they will work with each other. The fact that China pointed its first nuke at Moscow just tells people how well those two work together. And most American communists studied Soviet and European communist theories, while Mao used his own communist theories, with the intellects are split between which theories to support. Don't assume that American communist will love Chinese communist at first sight, like this statement suggests.

5) The entire spy thing is still a theory, while the US government do offer another explaination on why they block aid. By WP:UNDUE, the theory should not have more detail than the offical verison of the history, as it currently does.

Jim101 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I got a copy of the book Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. It showed that Harry Dexter White was working with KGB, and he was responsible for blocking gold shipments to Chiang and made him unable to fight hyperinflation. But the book also said that he, asides from associated with Adler, has no other connection with Chinese Communist. And this IMF paper disputes White's association with Adler. The other sources just said that White was a communist, but it also said that "Popular books gave a distorted view of Chinese Communism", and corruption charges also blocked Gold shipment to Chiang.

So if the source cited didn't say that there was a working relationship between KGB and Chinese communist at the time, why are we giving it a 60 words explaination that automaticly implies a Sino-Soviet alliance theory? By comparsion, the offical reason for blocking the aid due to Chiang's corruption only gets a 8 words mention, while the liberal media bias/sympathy for Chinese Communist that blocked aid to Chiang has no metion at all. Jim101 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose the following rewrite to the section due to my findings on the above sources, which will leave open the theory of Chinese communist blocked KMT aid via Solomon Adler, without overshadowing other factors on why US blocked aid, and without implyings that Soviet and China had an alliance during the Civil War.

The original passage was:

Due to concerns about widespread corruption in Chiang's government, the U.S. suspended aid to Chiang Kai-shek for much of the period of 1946 to 1948, in the midst of fighting against the People's Liberation Army led by Mao Zedong. In the 1950s, allegations of assistance to communist interests in China surfaced involving the withholding of funds for the stabilization of the Chinese currency by certain U.S. officials, including senior U.S. Treasury Department officials and alleged Soviet spies Harry Dexter White, Frank Coe, Solomon Adler, and others, in order to destabilize Chiang's Nationalist government during the Civil War.[7][8]

My rewrite is:

Due to the concerns about widespread corruption in Chiang's government, the sympathies for the Chinese Communist[7] and the alleged infiltration by Chinese communist agents,[8] the U.S. suspended aid to Chiang Kai-shek for much of the period of 1946 to 1948, in the midst of fighting against the People's Liberation Army led by Mao Zedong.

Jim101 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds ok in content, but for the wording is unclear. Does "the alleged infiltration by Chinese communist agents" mean the U.S. government was infiltrated, or the Chiang government was infiltrated. Similarly, were there sympathies within the Chiang government for Chinese Communists, or sympathies withing the U.S. government for Chinese Communists? Readin (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What i'm trying to say is there was strong sympathies for the Chinese Communist within the US government due to events like the Dixie mission, and the Chinese communist agent Solomon Adler was working in the US government and was involved in the decision to block aid to Chiang. Sorry for my wording, you can fix it if you want. Jim101 (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It now reads Due to the concerns about widespread corruption in Chiang's government and sympathies for the Chinese Communist[7] the U.S. government suspended aid to Chiang Kai-shek for much of the period of 1946 to 1948, in the midst of fighting against the People's Liberation Army led by Mao Zedong. Alleged infiltration of the U.S. government by Chinese Communist agents may have also played a role in the aid suspension.[8].

I'm still not completely happy with it. I considered putting

Due to sympathies within the U.S. government for the Chinese Communist, alleged infiltration of the U.S. government by Chinese Communist agents and concerns about widespread corruption in Chiang's government, the U.S. government suspended aid to Chiang Kai-shek for much of the period of 1946 to 1948, in the midst of fighting against the People's Liberation Army led by Mao Zedong. may have also played a role in the aid suspension.

This would have made the sentence clearer as far as what precisely was being said. But I didn't write it that way because I was afraid it would give the impression that the primary reason for the suspension was the communist sympathies and infiltration.

I'm not sure how to word it better. Anyone have any ideas? Readin (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I like the original version better, because it only says people sympathetic to the communists, but were not communist spies themselves. We should not make any changes to cited information if we don't have the cited material on hand to make that judgment. Blueshirts (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they were working for the Soviets or the Chinese Communists. Plus this was before the Sino-Soviet split. The point was that they wanted to see Chiang fail and that they acted to carry this out. Plenty of people wanted to see Chiang out, including journalists like Theodore White and foreign service agents like John Service. They were sympathetic to the communists but they were not spies. Blueshirts (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that once we used the term "Soviet" and "spy" in our explaination, we have to say why Soviet want Chiang to fail, besides they are Communist. We can't just imply that China and Soviet is on the same side on the Civil War, because the history between the two group is complicated.

The event is before Sino-Soviet split, but it is after Mao killed and removed most Soviet agents in his group after the Long March, there is friction and riviary between Chinese and Soviet Communists.

And I do have the original sources cited in the article to make my judgements. Jim101 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source to cite your judgments then go ahead and change it. Otherwise removing a reputable cited claim or "paraphrasing" it to the point that the original meaning is lot or new ideas added is not what I'd do. Blueshirts (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my original reasoning here, after I reviewed the content in citation #7 and #8 that were used to support the original statements:

I got a copy of the book Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. It showed that Harry Dexter White was working with KGB, and he was responsible for blocking gold shipments to Chiang and made him unable to fight hyperinflation (But the book did not say he did that under KGB order). But the book also said that he, asides from associated with Adler, has no other connection with Chinese Communist. And this IMF paper disputes White's association with Adler (or the fact that he is a Soviet agent). The other sources just said that White was a communist, but it also said that "Popular books gave a distorted view of Chinese Communism", and corruption charges also blocked Gold shipment to Chiang.

So if the source cited didn't say that there was a working relationship between KGB and Chinese communist at the time (Plus there are also reputable sources countered by stating White is a victim of McCarthyism), why are we giving it a 60 words explaination that automaticly implies a Sino-Soviet alliance theory? By comparsion, the offical reason for blocking the aid due to Chiang's corruption only gets a 8 words mention, while the liberal media bias/sympathy for Chinese Communist that blocked aid to Chiang has no metion at all.

Few more point about the sources that was originally used to support "Soviet Agent" theory (citation #8):

Only one spy was ever confirmed by the source in the aid suspension scandal, Chinese agent Solomon Adler.
The source states the damaged done by White is only minor to KMT war efforts. It also states the accusation against White about undermining Chiang's government was exaggerated, and was done Republicans for partisan purposes.
Most people that blocked aid to Chiang was swayed by the Dixie Mission and the book Red Star Over China, not because they are Communists.

Jim101 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalin supported Mao he did not hate him. Chiang was fiercely anti-communist. The USSR helped Mao overthrow Chiang and then controlled Mao's China. --67.52.196.217 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

colorized photo

the colorized photo looks nearly cartoonish. It should be replaced with a black and white photo. Crd721 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought so too. I've changed it back. Blueshirts (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Generalissimo"

So, what's the Chinese term they use, for that "Generalissimo" thing? Enquiring minds wanna know. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We didn't really have a term for it. We just called him the President. Liu Tao (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I finally ran into "大元帥 (大元帅, dàyuánshuài)" in History of the Republic of China, and in Wikt:generalissimo#Translations. Can you tell us what those 3 characters mean, in Chinese? Thanks in advance --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Da" means "large" or "great". "Yuanshuai" is a chinese rank equivilant to a Marshal, the guy who commands all of the military branches. So Da Yuanshuai would be like the "Grand Marshall" or something like that. The full name was "Hailugundayuanshuai", which meant "Grand Marshall of the Army and Navy". The rank name was changed in 1935 by the ROC government to "Tejishangjiang" which means "General Special Class", but some people translated it as "Generalissimo". The rank is a military rank, and has nothing (theoretically speaking) to do with the civil government of the ROC. He was President and Grand Marshall at the same time until like 1947 when the constitution was finished and implemented. After that, he was just President. Liu Tao (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, this is very informative. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerome - as you saw on page 57 of Taylor it was the western media who dreamed up the title "Generalissimo". I imagine they thought this was humorous, as we might say "el Supremo". As Liu notes, Chiang should be correctly referred to as "Grand Marshall". GroveGuy (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "dayuanshuai" (大元帥) would be a rather obscure name to refer to Chiang. He was better known was "Weiyuanzhang" (委員長), meaning "Chairman", as he was the chairman of the National Military Council, the highest decision making body for a long time in the Nationalist government. Chinese wiki says "Gimo" translates to Weiyuanzhang. Blueshirts (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese wiki says that the Americans referred to him as "Gimo", short for "Generalissimo". It even says that it was the Americans who translated "Grand Marshall" as "Generalissimo" instead of "Grand Marhshall". Anyways, the 'rank' "Chairman" was only within the Council. In the military as a whole, his rank was "General Special Class". Dayuanshuai was an actual military rank, but it was abolished and replaced with "General Special Rank" in 1935.

As for the Military Council, sure it directed the military, but it directed the military in the sense that the Ministry of Defence governs the military. Actually, the Ministry of Defence was created to replace the Military Council when it was abolished in 1946 by the newly implemented constitution.

And as for whether or not the NMC is the highest governing body of the government, that is not necessarily true. It's true that the council heads are the government leaders, but theoretically speaking, the government is still governed by the 5 branches. It's just that due to the lack of a constitution and stuff to regulate the government positions, many of the government seats of different organisations are taken over by the same government officials, so it's just the same group of people heading and operating the government. Liu Tao (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Daughter?

I just finished reading Fenby's biography of Chiang and there's no mention of any daughter named Chien-hua. I checked the Chinese version of this page and there's nobody named 建華. Where did this come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanenosuke (talk • contribs) 15:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Location of death

"Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China" should be avoided. It confuses by mixing geography and politics in a misleading way.

The city (densely populated area with lots of buildings and road but little vegetation) "Taipei" is in the country (area of shared cultures and history distinct from surrounding areas) "Taiwan" and in the island "Taiwan". However, the municipal area "Taipei" is not in the province "Taiwan". The use of "Republic of China" which is purely a political construct, implies that we are using political boundaries. By implying that we are using political boundaries and then placing "Taipei" inside Taiwan, we are suggesting the incorrect notion that "Taipei City" municipality is in "Taiwan Province".

I don't see why we don't just put "Taipei" period. Colipon+(Talk) 01:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put, hahahaha. I would seriously just want to make it off with 'Taipei', this perversion and twisting of words and definitions is making me sick and tired. Let's just make it off with 'Taipei', and if someone wonders where that is, they can just click on the link. It's only one click, won't kill them. Liu Tao (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Working with National Socialism

Why is there nothing in this article about Walter Stennes (leftwing National socialist) who left Germany in 1933 and worked as a military adviser to Chiang Kai-shek until 1949. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature?

Not sure where the 'signature' image came from. I don't think Chiang Kai-shek would ever sign his name in English.

And, if anything, that signature looks like it reads 'Mayling Amy(?) Chiang,' which would seem more reasonable as belonging to his American-educated wife Soong May-ling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.167.239 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like May-ling Soong Chiang. Definitely not his! HkCaGu (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it's his signature. Chiang doesn't speak English, his wife does, but he doesn't. When he was in the United States, his wife spoke for him, he just sat besides her as she gave speeches or speaks. Liu Tao (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Names of Chiang Kai-shek

Hi,

While many of us see Chiang Kai-shek printed in many newspapers in regards to him, has anyone ever seen his name rendered in Cantonese or other non-Mandarin dialects? Full blown Mandarin, if Wade-Giles, has this as Chiang Chieh-shih.

Modern Cantonese (Hong Kong Gov't Cantonese) would spell his name out as Tseung Kai-shek.

In Korean his name is rendered as Jang Gae-seok. (Revised Romanization; older romanizations of Korean would have that as Chang Kae-suk)

WikiPro1981X (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek is his Cantonese name. Liu Tao (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Chiang is not Cantonese. Kai-Shek is, but not necessarily only Cantonese. HkCaGu (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say he was Cantonese, I'm saying that was his Cantonese name. That's the Cantonese Pronounciation of his name, it's what the Late President Sun Yat-sen had called him by. Sun was Cantonese. Liu Tao (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant the surname "Chiang" was not Cantonese. "Kai-shek" is exactly the common Cantonese transliteration. Someone born in Hong Kong today surnamed 蔣 would most likely be spelled "Cheung". HkCaGu (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There are more than one system of Romanisation. Not all of them are the same. 'Today', there is a largely universal Romanisation system for Cantonese. Back 'then', there were many, if they were used at all. Liu Tao (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

@LiuTao - Of course, we're referring to the character for Pinyin jiang3. That character is also used for Pinyin zhang1 if I am not mistaken. The HK spelling of Cheung would point to the Mandarin Chang or Zhang while Tseung would correspond to the Pinyin Jiang. Jyutping romanizations spell both "Zhang" and "Jiang3" as Zoeng (Yale romanization: Jeung), whereas for jiang1 Jyutping spells that gong1 (river) or goeng1 (ginger or frontier; geung1 in Yale), with the respective HKG romanizations being kong1 and keung1. WikiPro1981X (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And as I have said, back then there were many systems for romanising Cantonese. 'Chiang Kai-shek' could have been any of those systems, if any system was used at all to romanise his name. Standard Cantonese Pinyin, the official system used by Hong Kong to romanise Cantonese wasn't developed until 1971, 4 years before his death, and since then it has been modified multiple times as well. His name has been romanised as 'Chiang Kai-shek' for decades before the Standard Cantonese Pinyin was developed. Jyutping was developed in 1993, almost 20 years after his death. Liu Tao (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Attack by dog in childhood?

This is a true story, the facts widely known in some circles. A 1993 Taiwanese interview of a stepson of Chiang Kai-Shek lent an interesting perspective to the motivation of the general. When very young Kai-Shek accidentally sat on the hot metal handle of a domestic stove, burning his privates. His mother immediately rubbed lard onto the affected area. The following day Kai-Shek was defecating in a nearby field. A stray dog happened by; attracted by the smell of lard the dog savaged Kai-Shek causing injuries affecting the rest of his life. Consequently it seems probable Kai-Shek never fathered a natural child; his children all adopted. 118.93.115.65 (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice attempt at trolling, unfortunetly for you, wikipedia is not a chat room for you to spread conspiracy theories. Chiang Kaiehek had a biological son, Chiang Ching-kuo, only his other son, Chiang Wei-kuo, was adopted. The reason was rendered sterile after contracting gonnorhea from prostitutes in Shanghai, and he infected his wife Chen Jieru with the disease after contraction. your story is entirely made up.Дунгане (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidency in Taiwan

In the third paragraph under Presidency in Taiwan, I see this sentence:

He financed predominately Muslim soldiers of the former National Revolutionary Army in Yunnan under Li Mi (ROC general) to continue to fight, it was only in the 1980s when he allowed them to be airlifted back to Taiwan.

He died in 1975, so can someone clarify this? And when you make the change, please change that comma to a semicolon, or else make it 2 sentences. It is now a run-on sentence.

67.162.2.121 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Chiang Kai Shek

[2]

RJ Rummel estimated that around 10 million Chinese died of democide during Chiang's tenture from 1921 to 1948, of which 6.5 million dying of flooding/famine. It places Chiang and Nationalist China at fourth, after the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Nazi Germany. See also "China's Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900"[3]
"Red Star over China" cites KMT official releases - at least 1 million during the Fifth Encirclement Campaign against Jiangxi Soviet, 3-6 million during a 3 year famine in North West China, 5,000 during the Shanghai Massacre, 12,000 further executions [4].
Chiang's White Terror campaign "took millions of lives" [5]
1938 Yellow River flood - 1 million deaths, 12 million displaced. 1943 famine in Henan caused 3 million to die of starvation. [6]
1938 Changsha Fire - estimated at least 3,000, destroying 20% of the city.
Highest estimates put the figure at 18 million [7]

--PCPP (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information

I removed some false information that suggested that Chiang at one point was a leftist and pro-Soviet. That is false. Chiang was very far right and was always fiercely anti-Soviet and anti-communist. --67.52.196.217 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't know anything about Chiang Kai-shek then, don't removed referenced material. Chiang Kai-shek was commandant of Whampoa Military Academy which was supplied by the Soviet Union and advised by Soviets like Mikhail Borodin.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it is not clear Chiang was always intensely anti-Communist or anti-Socialist. He was, after all, an early associate of Sun Yat-sen, who was none of these things, and he received substantial early support from the Russians, which did not entirely end until the end of the Second World War. But my speculations on his early views are not terribly relevant. What is relevant is that the material is amply sourced. If an editor thinks the sourced material represents a non-consensus position among historians, the appropriate response is to bring in additional reliable sources challenging this view, rather than to wholesale remove existing sourced material without adequate explanation. Yaush (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Soviets opposed Chiang long before the end of World War II. They were helping Mao to overthrow Chiang. I once believed these false statements also because of reading inaccurate history. But actually the Soviets assisted Mao in overthrowing Chiang starting in the 1930s.--67.52.196.217 (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is probably more complicated than Chiang's public image makes him appear. By the mid-1930s, Chiang was receiving and accepting aid from the US, Great Britain, the USSR, and Nazi Germany, all at the same time. Whatever his relationship with the CCP, he wasn't one to look a gift horse in the mouth. If some sourced material was removed without consensus, it should definitely be replaced.

Also, the contention that "the Soviets opposed Chiang before WWII" is patently false. During the Xi'an incident, Stalin sent a long telegram to Yan'an specifically instructing the CCP to negotiate for Chiang's release, and to form a united front to oppose the Japanese. Stalin was extremely displeased with Mao when the united front deteriorated in the early 1940s. Stalin was not opposed to Chiang at all, actively supported the Nationalist government, and disagreed with the CCP's hostility towards Chiang, until the end of WWII.Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

67.52.196.217, I took a look at your edits. I'm not making any personal attacks, but you appear to be a right wing christian given your edits on the mormon articles, and an anti socialist, a member of the American christian right. I suggest you read up on Chinese history, since the Chinese "right wing" has very different ideas than the American "right wing". Chinese anti communists like Chiang Kai-shek supported heavy government interference in the economy, unlike American right wingers, who oppose government messing with the economy. In effect, Chiang Kai-shek was a socialist, promoting a massive government owned industrial economy. He was a conservative, right wing socialist.

Don't try to apply American style politics to China. The American right wing hates government interference, and American social conservatives don't support left wing economic policies, but in China, its the opposite. Both communists and anti communists in China, on all sides, have socialist policies with heavy government inference in the economy. In China, its possible to be a social and cultural conservative, and be economically socialist.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And in addition, Chiang personally trusted americans as much as he did the Soviets, which is to say, not at all. His regime deliberately spread the story that General Sun Liren was behind an American backed coup attempt behind him- Chiang_Kai-shek#Americans_and_the_CIA. He only made alliances with foreign countries either to save his own behind or stop China from being overrun by another countries.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "Stalin was not opposed to Chiang at all" is patently false. Chiang viewed the communists as the real enemy and wanted to delay fighting Japan until the communists were defeated and the USSR weakened. The Soviets never supported Chiang, they supported Mao. --99.172.130.196 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

By "communists", do you mean the Russians, or the CCP? (They aren't the same at all.) What data (source) supports the interpretation that Chiang was in some way attempting to weaken the USSR by attacking the CCP?

The general relationship between Stalin and Mao was notably bad. In 1939, Stalin was so displeased with Mao's leadership that he refused to meet with Zhou Enlai when Zhou traveled to Moscow. Shortly after establishing himself as the CCP's primary leader in 1943, Mao purged most of the leaders of the CCP who had worked closely with Stalin (most notably Wang Ming). Because Stalin expressed strong opposition to Mao's leadership in 1939, and because Mao conscientiously persecuted Chinese Communists potentially loyal to Stalin after Mao achieved enough power to do so, the personal relationship between Stalin and Mao can't have been particularly good. Understanding the relationship between Chiang, Stalin, and Mao is more complicated than simply noting who was communist and who was not.Ferox Seneca (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perspectives

It is curious how the same facts and situations could be interpreted so differently based on different political agendas.

When Chiang and his wife lived in a big house in Chongqing and ate well during WWII, they were condemned as being corrupt. When his elegant wife went to America to seek American support for China's war efforts, she was condemned as being extravagant. These accusations were used by the Chinese Communists and Communist sympathisers for their battles against Chiang and by the Americans for their abandoning China when George Marshall failed to get Chinese Communists cooperation in his peace efforts in China.

In the meantime, when the King and Queen of England lived in the palace and ate well every day, they were praised for being patriotic and refusing to buckle under the blitz. When the Queen dressed in her finery to meet the people, she was praised as a considerate royal role model.

When the Soviet Russians kept Chiang's eldest son hostage because Chiang refused to cooperate with the Chinese Communists, he stated that the welfare of the Chinese people was more important to him than the welfare of his son; he was condemned as being cold and unfeeling.

When Oprah Winfrey decided not to have children and stated that she considers all the black kids in South Africa her children, she was praised for being a loving and big-hearted person.

"Never trust a fact without knowing the hypothesis" is more than just a scientific maxim, it should be the rule of life. VimalaNowlis (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this article could be improved in some way...?Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

While I believe there is something to what you say, there's no way to work it into the article without violating WP:NPOV, and these talk pages aren't intended as forums for general discussion of a subject. There are more appropriate venues for beating your gums. --Yaush (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:E81599c6ee2dd8f3d000607f.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:E81599c6ee2dd8f3d000607f.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 19 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yao Yecheng wikilink

the wikilink to second wife, Yao Yecheng just circles back thru redirects to the chiang article. doesn't she even get a stub of her own? Cramyourspam (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you havea a good source, please create one.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

not easy. but working on it. cheers.Cramyourspam (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Section

The section on CKS and Muslims is patently not NPOV. 80.4.17.26 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is only semi-sourced. Please provide examples of NPOV, and of how you believe the section could be improved. If you have a good source and you wish to improve the section by adding a different POV, please do so.Ferox Seneca (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"This caused Islamic power in northwestern China to increase, no other President had dared to appoint Muslims as Governors of Gansu, and the three Muslim governors, known as Xibei San Ma (lit. the three Mas of the Northwest), controlled armies composed entirely of Muslims. Chiang called on the three and their suboordinates to wage war against the Soviet Russians, Tibetans, Communists, and the Japanese, which they did ferociously with their Muslim cavalry. Chiang appointed a Muslim General, Bai Chongxi, as the Minister of National Defence of the Republic of China, which controlled the ROC military." Small points, I know, but doesn't at all match tone or style of the rest of the paragraph or even the Buddhist section. 80.4.17.26 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote this paragraph to address the concerns that you identified. Please let me know if this edit is not sufficient, and if there are other areas which you believe might need improvement.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Kind of jumping in here, but: Yes, that is a considerable improvement.

--Yaush (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, huge improvement, neutral, factual, great! 80.4.17.26 (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (Not sure if my IP will stay the same, but I was 80.4.17.26. )

Second paragraph of introduction is deeply problematic

It has shifted from a distinct and counterfactual bias against Chiang to a distinct and counterfactual bias in favor of Chiang. Neither is acceptable. We need a summary of the range of opinions on this period with proper sourcing. --Yaush (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote this paragraph. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions to improve it.Ferox Seneca (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sun was left wing?

The current first paragraph says

Unlike Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek was socially conservative, promoting traditional Chinese culture in the New Life Movement and rejected western democracy and the democratic socialism that Sun Yet-sen and other left-wing members of the KMT embraced in favor of an authoritarian nationalist government. (emphasis added)

How does "left-wing" fit with Chinese politics of the time? I think the word is mis-used here. The sentence seems to imply that "left-wing" people support democracy but "right-wing" people don't which is historically inaccurate. The sentence also implies that Sun did not support nationalism yet that was one of his three principles. This sentence should be changed. Readin (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to rant on how "Left" and "Right" mean very different things in Europe versus the United States versus other regions. The terms seem particularly inappropriate in early 20th-century China. But I'm not sure what other terms of reference would be superior. --Yaush (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek was socially conservative, promoting traditional Chinese culture in the New Life Movement and rejected western democracy and the nationalist democratic socialism that Sun Yet-sen and some other members of the KMT embraced in favor of a nationalist authoritarian government.

How does that sound? Readin (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejected --> rejecting. Other than that, I think it's good. Out of curiosity, what factors make Sun substantially more socially liberal than Chiang? I always interpreted Chiang's split with the CCP as due more to a political power struggle than to anything arising from their different ideologies.Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we have a disruptive edit war going on over our lead. What's the protocol for dealing with that?Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Find an administrator and ask for the article to be locked until the war gets resolved. The admin can either lock it so that only admins can edit, or the admin can lock it so that only registered editors can edit. Readin (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"promoting traditional Chinese culture in the Confucian-based New Life Movement"

This seems like a rather serious mischaracterization of the New Life Movement, which, while it had Confucian elements, would be better described as a syncretism of Confucian and Methodist Christian values. For example, if memory seres, it sought to eradicate opium addiction and footbinding and to discourage alcohol and tobacco use. However, I thought this should be discussed here before I reverted or modified the sentence. --192.12.184.6 (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't researched the New Life movement in depth, but the paragraph is sourced. If you disagree with the article and wish to alter its content, the best way to go about it would be to find that the source doesn't reflect the article's content, or find a second source that presents a different perspective.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect caption to picture of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall

The caption reads: "The National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is a famous Monument, landmark and tourist attractions in Taipei and Taiwan.". This is both gramatically (...a [] attractions) and factually erroneous (Taipei is the capital of Taiwan). I suggest simply correcting caption to "The National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is a monumental landmark site and a major tourist attraction in Taipei, Taiwan.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.134.194 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The caption was changed according to your suggestion.Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done. Your caption is superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.134.194 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)