Talk:Retreat of the government of Republic of China to Taiwan

And the viewpoint of the indigenous people to "7. Views on the legality of the KMT takeover of Taiwan"?

Maybe in the spirit of the UN International Decades and World Day of the World's Indigenous People: 1. How many indigenous people were living on the island of Taiwan when then all of a sudden 2 million military & co under a "generalissimo" decided to retreat to their island on 7 December 1949-1950? 2. And how did these indigenous people feel about this? Doesn't that deserve to be mentioned in this chapter "7. Views on the legality of the KMT takeover of Taiwan"? 3. 9 August is the "International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples" every year, and there're already 3 UN International Decades on Indigenous People; the last one - we are still living in it: 2022–2032. More: https://www.un.org/en/observances/international-decades and https://www.un.org/en/observances/list-days-weeks Thy, happy 2023 UN #Dialogue4PeaceYear, https://www.un.org/en/observances/international-years, SvenAERTS (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

Recently this page was moved by User:SilverStar54 from Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan to "Koumintang's Retreat to Taiwan" (now at Kuomintang's retreat to Taiwan). This was presented as a "minor edit" and the justification was "Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE)". This was certainly not a "minor" change! It is shorter, but I'm not sure whether it is more "precise". Changing the emphasis from the state government (ROC) to the political party (Kuomintang) seems potentially controversial. The fact that the new page name contained a misspelling suggests that not much thought went into this move. I think this should have been discussed and I think the page should be moved back to the original title - precisely because it is more precise. Furius (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Furius, apologies for the hasty move. In my partial defense, I did not intentionally mark the move as minor, that's just how the move tool marks all page moves classified as "Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE)". The infobox and the article used the new title interchangeably with old one, and I thought it made sense to use the shorter name if they were equivalent. However, you raise some good points why this move at least requires some more discussion. Personally I'm not wedded to any specific move but I do feel pretty strongly that "Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan" is excessively long. Perhaps "Retreat of the Republic of China to Taiwan" is a better alternative? Specifying that it was only the "government of" the ROC that moved seems to imply that the ROC still controls the mainland, which feels at least as non-neutral as using the name of the Kuomintang. What do you think? SilverStar54 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It may be that I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill. I guess that you're right that the length of the old title was a problem and, as you say, the article currently uses: "Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan", "Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan", "Kuomintang's retreat to Taiwan", and "the Great Retreat" at various points, so perhaps they are equivalent and equally fine. So, unless someone else chimes in with an opinion, I should probably just withdraw my objection. Furius (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I have moved (back) to the "Retreat of the Republic of China to Taiwan" title as you suggested. Going forward, please discuss in the talk page first before doing a major move. NM 02:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain why "government" needs to be in the title? The first paragraph explains that the participants included "2 million ROC troops took part in the retreat, in addition to many civilians and refugees". That sounds like a lot more than just the government itself, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess because the RoC still claimed to control mainland China afterwards, so it would be pov to claim that the RoC as a whole had retreated. Furius (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So maybe something like Retreat of the Kuomintang to Taiwan would be a better choice? But I am far from having any awareness of the subtleties of nomenclature in this area. I merely stumbled on this because a biography I made today involved a participant as a youth (who later went on to do other unrelated things), and it would be nice to have a stable title to link to from his article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s pretty complicated. The retreat includes the political parties (plural, because KMT is not the only party retreating), the civilians and the military.

For the record, I did not add the "government" to the title. @Thomasettaei did. Perhaps they can explain it a bit here? NM 10:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The "2 million ROC troops took part in the retreat, in addition to many civilians and refugees" are not numbers really backed up though. And the numbers are frequently contradicted. The "Waishengren" (mainlanders in Taiwan) article actually says that only around 1 million total mainlanders arrived in Taiwan according to data from the 1950s. So the numbers on this article and the numbers on other articles don't line up. If it really was around only 1 million (including troops), it would appear that there are not that many fled to Taiwan. --Thomasettaei (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's 1 or 2 million, that's still a lot more than just the government. The refugees included soldiers, party members, and assorted anti-communists. Including "government" makes the title more wordy without making it more accurate. We should shorten it to be WP:CONCISE. SilverStar54 (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)