Talk:Chiang Kai-shek/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Authoritarianism

As others have pointed out, the statement that Chiang "rejected" Sun's philosophy in favor of authoritarianism is rather debatable. Sun argued that a period of tutelage under Kuomintang domination was necessary before democracy, after the Beyiang Goverment failed. China was never stable nor fully unified under Chiang's rule, and many of Chiang's quotes suggested he considered himself quite pro-democracy. Point is, unless there is something I'm missing, it's not really clear whether Chiang was following Sun's plan or not. And thus it seems inaccurate to say he "rejected" Sun's views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.252.74 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Phonetic pronunciation of CKS

Could someone who knows (not me, I'm afraid) put up a phonetic guide to the pronunciation of CKS's name? I ask because in Barbara Tuchman's biography of Joe Stilwell she criticises a US official for pronouncing his name to rhyme with "bang". I'd always assumed that was right too.Thomas Peardew (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

All Chinese -ang sounds use an ah vowel, not a long ey. The first syllable of Shanghai doesn't rhyme with "bang" either. — LlywelynII 12:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not necessary to try to pronounce foreign names as their natives do. Chiang Kai-shek is known in English as Chiang (to rhyme with Bang), Kai (to rhyme with Sky) and Shek (to rhyme with Check). Efforts at 'correct' Chinese pronunciation (which 'Chinese'?) are fruitless. Changing foreign names from well-established English transliterations are confusing. I am reading a book where he is referred to as Jiang Jieshi. My own name is French, but we pronounce it is a thoroughly English way; which is 'correct' for us. The French say it differently, which is correct for them.Ballenstedter (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-Shek is a Cantonese version of his name, which would be pronounced [jöng gai sek], where "ö" is as in German "ö" or French "eu," "gai" is as the English word "guy," and "sek" rhymes with "heck." English speakers had a hard time figuring out how to romanize this Cantonese vowel, and it shows up a number of different ways. China now attempts to force all proper names (and everything else) into Mandarin, leaving people with things like "Jiang Jeshi" which no one but Mainland Chinese folks would recognize as the historical figure Chiang Kai-Shek. One problem is that Mainland scholars are under pressure to pretend dialects other than Mandarin never existed, lol, so it's hard to get accurate information from the very people who would be most knowledgeable. At this point, they may have inherited the problem, though, i.e. are not actively covering up the true pronunciation themselves, but rather their own professors had already "revised history" by the time modern scholars studied it, effectively destroying much detailed knowledge of life in China (and Tibet and Turkestan) as it truly was in, say, 1949.

Dia Li

What was said about Dia Li whose name was actually Tai Li is not entirely correct. He did not trust or like the British who arrested him when Tai Li went to Vietnam before WW-II and Chiang had to arrange for his release. Tai was the Director of a US Navy Unit called SACO. SACO was the only military unit that I know of who was under the direct control of a foreign government, China. ADM Miles was the Deputy Director of SACO. Tai Li ordered the British intelligence unit out of China after WW-II started. After the war started, ADM King gave then Commander Miles secret orders to go to China and work with Tai Li to set up weather stations and help the Chinese and locate coast watchers to look for Japanese ships. SACO’ duties were expanded later. Tai Li was also in charge of China’s BIA, Bureau of Investigation and Statistics, which is like our FBI. It is true Tai Li did not trust many people but he developed a very close relationship with the SACO personal and ADM Miles and trusted them completely. It is also true he did not like and Chiang did like GEN Stillwell, GEN Wedemyer or GEN Donovan due to things which were said and done. It is also true a US General made a mistake at a banquet given for him by Tai Li. He got drunk and said some things which criticized China and Chaing’s wife. It became a major issue between the US and China and things had to be smoothed out. Unknown to Chiang, General Donovan, who was director of the OSS, sent men to north China and met with the Communist Chinese. When Chiang found out through information provided by Tai Li, he became very angry with General Wedemyer since he was the theater commander and another situation developed and trust between the US and China became strained again. GEN Stillwell, Gen Wedemyer and GEN Donovan wanted SACO out of China and did everything they could to do so. This also did not help in the relationship between Chiang, Tai Li and the US government and military. See www.saconavy.com and ADM Miles book “A Different Kind of War” and other books written about SACO by SACO veterans about the relationship between the US military and Chiang/Tai Li and the US government. Jack Coyle SACO Historian jackwcoyle@bellsouth.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.105.139 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milktaco (talk • contribs) 2012-2016 (UTC)

Names

The Chinese characters are available in the Name section and the infobox: they don't go in the lede; the Wade transliterations—other than Chiang Kai-shek—are available in the Name section and the infobox: they don't go in the lead. For the most part, we use pinyin for all the romanizations here, while noting the others. See WP:LEDE and WP:MOS-ZH. It's not a POV issue either: Taiwan finally adopted pinyin as their romanization system a few years back. — LlywelynII 12:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: Should the Shek be written with a capital letter? I have an example of "Chiang Kai-Shek" on the Wuhan page, and it is consistent with the usage of some people from Taiwan ROC, for instance Shi-Kuo Chang. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have seen native Chinese speakers capitalize the first letter of each character in a Chinese name, like "ShangHai" or "Zhou EnLai", but this is only because they do not understand the formal writing conventions for writing Chinese names in the Latin alphabet. I'm not aware of any reliable source that capitalizes every syllable. Don't do it.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are formal writing conventions for Hanyu Pinyin and specific editions handed down from On High to point to. "Chiang Kai-shek" is a dialectical romanization and (to the extent they even have rules) the rules tend to be awful. The standard Cantonese system at the moment writes every character completely separately (even when they constitute a single word) and formally avoids capitalization, so that Wiktionary currently transcribes the Cantonese name for 北京 as bak ging.

In any case, there are plenty of English sources that can be found that would write the name Chiang Kai-Shek or even Chiang Kai Shek but the default treatment (brought over from Wade's formal rules for transcribing Mandarin names) would be to use Chiang Kai-shek and Ngram suggests that has always been the default English treatment. — LlywelynII 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Fwiw, this entry on Quora looks pretty well thought out until you realize the writer is so careless that he can't even write Suzhou as a single word. Sure enough, The Tonic Dictionary has nothing to do with the source of Chiang's romanization and doesn't even include the spelling "Chiang" in its transcriptions. — LlywelynII 03:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

ok to quote Chiang about his own childhood

When can sources material be omitted by the WP:UNDUE rule? Here's the rule: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. the "tiny minority" means fringe writers who have written about Chiang. Chiang is a RS on himself and Wiki often tells us how people saw themselves. There is no "tiny minority" here and no violation of the rule. Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Colorized image

The colorized image of Chiang in the infobox, File:蔣中正肖像(上色).jpg, seems poorly colorized and out of place. Should the greyscale version be used in lieu of the current version, for aesthetic and possibly historical purposes? Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 03:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this was done, archive or delete this section. --198.98.255.237 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The infobox image has been reverted to the poorly colorized image again recently. Given the discussion above, and with the same complaints about the current version, I'm going to revert the image to where it was a couple weeks ago. Ch3wy (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Native name (Hanzi)

Somebody changed the native name from "蒋介石" to "蔣中正", from the usual name for Chiang Kai-shek to the "adopted name", and with an edit summary of "use name that he used in the ROC". I checked the article history and can see that for a long name the infobox had both names. But in May 2017 it was changed to displaying only "蔣中正", with an edit summary of "The official name" (which that isn't). I'm going to change it back to what was present for a long time, both names. For reference that will be:

|native_name = {{nobold|蔣中正}}<br />{{nobold|蔣介石}}

Is there a problem having both names? Shenme (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No, 介石 by itself, however, is less acceptable. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Eisenhower visits Taiwan (June 1960).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

When and where did he die?

• New York Times: "Taipei Central Hospital" "last night" (relative to Sunday, April 6) "11:50 P.M. (10:50 A.M., New York time). "
• Office of the President, ROC (Taiwan): "at his Shilin residence." "1975-04-05" (Chinese: "於臺北士林官邸" "64年04月05日 ")
• Two Chinese language sources, one purporting to be derived from Chiang Ching-kuo's diary: "1975年4月4日晚間11點50分，" & "4月4日：父亲于夜11时50分，" "病逝于士林官邸。" also, [1] follows this interpretation

Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chongkian and Zanhe: I don't know who needs to be pinged, but I think I need to ping someone here. Am I interpreting the sources correctly? Is there really some kind of confusion or dispute about the date and place for Chiang Kai-shek's death? If I have misinterpreted anything or am giving too much credence to conspiracy theories, please revert me. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia says of Yen Chia-kan "4月6日上午11時，嚴家淦宣誓就任總統。"Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan Office of the President Chinese version says Yen Chia-kan became President on the 5th. The English version says he was sworn in on the 6th and doesn't mention whether he was President before that (see his page where I have everything linked now). Except for that one number (5 or 6) all the other dates in the list of events in his Presidency are the same between the English and Chinese versions. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, New York would have been in daylight savings at that time ([2]) which would be UTC−04:00. Taiwan was on Chungyuan Standard Time 中原標準時間 UTC+08:00 ([3]). Wouldn't that be 12 hours apart (as in, if he died at 11:50 PM, then it would be 11:50 AM the next day in New York)? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Simplified character names

@Geographyinitiative: Re: the simplified character "蒋" not appearing in a Taiwanese (Republic of China) MOE dictionary

As per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Should_the_Chinese_infobox_display_both_Simplified_and_Traditional_Chinese_for_all_Greater_China_and/or_Sinosphere-related_subjects,_or_should_it_only_display_the_relevant_ones_per_territory/area? all Chinese-related subjects should display both Traditional and Simplified characters. The majority of editors of this MOS discussion expressly contradicted the rationale that one should check ZHWiki: The desire is to have both forms.

I wanted to check the MOE dictionary to see if they did list simplified forms anyway, but I'm having trouble accessing it... WhisperToMe (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Hello there. The point of including foreign language material on English Wikipedia is to provide readers with information about the native language name (names) of the person/article/etc involved. What you need to demonstrate is that 蒋 is part of a 'native name' for this person. The problem is, I don't have any evidence that this character is part of a legitimate 'native name' for this person. If you want to start adding all the potential forms of this person's name to the page, it will get hectic fast. Once you have evidence that this was part of his name, then and only then should you add that information to this page. Dictionaries comparing simplified, traditional etc characters can be seen at en.wiktionary.org. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Note- there are DEFINITELY some simplified-type characters that are used in the native language of the people in the ROC, for instance 湾 can be seen in advertisements everywhere. What you've got to show is that that 蒋 is part of a form of this persons 'native name'. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

On the Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia, it's important to show all the different forms of Chinese characters currently used by Mandarin speakers so that Mandarin Chinese readers can understand things. English Wikipedia is only concerned with bona fide native names of the topic of the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Simplified characters of various derivations are sometimes used in the ROC area and can be clearly demonstrated to be in use between the native people in the area. What we need is specific proof that this specific character is part of a citable, actual native name for this person. Non-native names could be included too, but there's no need since they have their own Wikipedias, and if the reader really wants to know more, they can go to Wiktionary etc. Mainland China uses Simplified characters as its primary form of Chinese characters, but their understanding of traditional characters is still used throughout the country and in their official standards (like 2010s decade's Table of General Standard Chinese Characters). To whatever extent traditional characters were historically or are culturally in use in those areas, they are legitimate for addition as 'native names' on English Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I am curious about the statement that "Simplified characters of various derivations are sometimes used in the ROC area and can be clearly demonstrated to be in use between the native people in the area." - Are there citable references I may read about this? I wasn't aware of this particular aspect.

Otherwise several arguments had been made in the discussion page I linked: it was argued, for example, that Simplified is not a "native form" of Hong Kong, and the dictionary argument was brought up too. The majority of editors in the MOS discussion stated anyway that they wanted both forms due to their utility/usefulness, to the point where the editor in favor of curtailing the forms was told that it was WP:SNOW and WP:1AM (as in all respondants except two wanted the utility).

If you want a reconsideration of the decision at the MOS page, you'll have to open a discussion at the MOS page (that can also be a WP:RFC, but if so, should be linked from the MOS page) and notify all relevant WikiProjects (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia) as I did.

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

蒋 needs to be shown as part of a native name for this person. It may be possible that 蒋 could be legitimately considered part of a native name for this person, but I would like to see why we would consider it native, otherwise we are giving undue prominence to a "non-native native name". The dictionaries in the ROC don't have the character 蒋 as far as I remember, and 蒋 is not used in native-to-native communication (or at least not demonstrated to be used in native-native discussion). All the traditional/simplified/etc forms that can be cited as bona fide native names for this person are being displayed on the page, which is consistent with the policy you are citing.

(Answering your other questions as best I can: Yang Kui's 1936 臺湾新聞學, [4], the logo of [5] & the logo of [6] all the use the form 湾, hence it has got to be considered part of ROC culture on some level. Also, 区 is used widely in the ROC in handwriting. The simplified forms they are using are part of their native language communication; the alien simplified forms are just that- alien. The Hong Kong SAR is a part of the People's Republic of China on some level, hence simplified characters are definitely going to be part of the native language mix there on some level, since the PRC government has their official set of simplifications.)

I await some evidence that 蒋 is part of a bona fide native name for this person. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: "I await some evidence that 蒋 is part of a bona fide native name for this person." - "蒋" would be part of the "native name" under the orthography rules of Mainland China, Malaysia, and Singapore (I feel like it is not necessary for me to look it up/link at this point). I am aware CKS was never resident in the PRC, so it isn't his "state". However CKS originated from, and lived on the Chinese Mainland before the loss of the civil war, and he was involved in political disputes with Mainland authorities. Even if one argues that modern ROC/Taiwan topics have no affinity with Mainland China, CKS still does have such a relationship, and so PRC orthography would be relevant to him.

Also consider that ancient Chinese poets/figures/etc (example: Wei Zhongxian) have their names in Simplified Chinese too (if different from Traditional), even though it obviously never existed in their lifetimes. I do not believe the ENwiki userbase would allow for the removal of Simplified Chinese from those figures, so why would they want it removed from CKS's article?

Trying to consider only Republic of China (Taiwan) orthography and not all forms of modern Chinese orthography goes against the RFC I linked above. The RFC establishes that all written forms of "modern Chinese" are together considered the "native name" - the argument that simplified is not native names of Traditional Chinese territories was rejected by the RFC I linked above.

Anyway, if you strongly disagree with the result, please create a new RFC as per my instructions above and ensure all participants are notified. This would not only affect this article, but other ROC and Taiwan-related articles and potentiall all articles of people who were not alive on or after 1949.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: In a spirit of good will, I want to ask you to look at what you wrote and compare what you wrote to the point of having foreign language material on English Wikipedia. You wrote, "The RFC establishes that all written forms of "modern Chinese" are together considered the "native name"". Isn't it interesting that you have to write this sentence instead of providing sources for this foreign language material you are trying to add to the page? Wikipedia is about sources. The only way you can think to add the names with 蒋 is on the basis of what is "considered" a "native name" and not what actually are his sourced native names- no need to be "considered" a native name- it just is. Why do we need to add unsourced, "non-native native names" to an English Wikipedia page? Why? It's interesting that in your list of nations using PRC-standard Chinese characters, the nation that this person was elected president of for five terms is not included. Don't you think you're violating the point of having foreign language material on English Wikipedia, which is to show the readers not the "considered" native names, but the actual bona fide native language names of the subject of the article? Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (PRC) dictionary) is available through an APP (the page mentions it at http://ling.cass.cn/tzgg/201908/t20190815_4957899.html ) but I learned a basic version the APP is available for free. I downloaded the APP, and the dictionary does not list peoples' names as being distinct, not even the likes of Mao Zedong or Sun Yat-sen: it only goes by characters. Otherwise the results are predictable, as the simplified is shown as default, with traditional in parenthenses.

"Wikipedia is about sources." - Which is true, if it is not "common sense". I don't need to source that Paris is the capital of France. In most articles there is no demand of a particular dictionary source on whether something is written in Simplified or Traditional (in regards to Traditional that issue comes up with ways of writing "Taiwan").

Remember usually Chinese dictionaries I usually often show both forms as being complementary versions: MDBG (see the result) and Pleco (see screenshots) treat both Simplified and Traditional as just two equally valid forms of Putonghua, and so there would be no "native name" violation in that consideration. It may indeed be true that the ROC government in particular only considers limited forms valid for its purposes, but that is best addressed as a footnote instead of excluding Simplified Chinese altogether from the template; people in the MOS discussion stated very clearly they wanted to see the simplified forms.

The reason I wrote the above sentence is that A. it would be obvious that a PRC source would consider Simplified characters to be Chiang's "native name" and B. I believe that PRC-based and/or overseas dictionaries also have to be considered, not only ROC ones.

"the nation that this person was elected president of for five terms is not included" - Because in regards to the Chinese template I'm also considering what other areas consider his "native name", not only the ROC.

Anyway since this contradicts the Manual of Style discussion I linked above, the idea that forms of Chinese not validated by the ROC gov't for CKS should be excluded from the article as being "foreign names" needs to be confirmed by consensus through an RFC. If you want me to file an RFC, I will happily do that. If the Wikipedia community agrees with your assertion, then that's that. If an RFC concludes that Simplified characters are "non-native native names", that's that.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I decided to file the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_traditional_and_simplified_forms_of_Chinese_count_as_the_same_name_or_different_names_in_regards_to_eligibility_of_displaying_characters?. It may affect multiple articles, and it is best to get the community's consensus in this regard. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Reassumption of Presidency Illegal

I was listening to 汪浩 on Era Money recently, and he said that Chiang's resumption the Presidency was illegal under the ROC constitution. After VP (Li Zongren did not have a VP), there is another official who gets the presidency, the Pres of the Executive Yuan, then Yan Xishan. Is this a legitimate interpretation of the situation? Was Chiang technically holding office illegally between 1950 and 1954 [7]? If these legal theories have enough notability, they should be added here. If there are other explanations that have notability, they should be included. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

More Mention of Chiang Kai-Shek and Lend-Lease hoarding?

Material Aid to Chiang's government delivered via the Burma Road and later the HUMP(in this case the share of supply given to the Kuomintang Forces, not the Flying Tigers) rarely reached Chinese divisions on the Japanese front and primarily was "hoarded", either by local generals, civil servants, and the central government itself, for use against the Communists for possible use in a future civil war and to bolster the existing Quarantine line, or for personal enrichment and strengthening of regional armies. Because of these conflicting goals, most Lend-Lease never reached the Japanese front Despite this not being intended by the United States, Lend-Lease continued to China mainly for Foreign Policy reasons and to keep Chinese morale up and appease Chiang. The existing mentions of aid to China should make a much stronger reference to this in the article. Important to note this in the article because the American Lend-Lease was one of the most important aspects of US-China relations, and what Chiang did with it is an important reflection of his personality and policy as a whole. —Source: "Stillwell and the American Experience in China", Tuchman 2603:6011:9643:8A00:C4F4:3935:6CD2:632 (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Describing Taiwan as "a vibrant and highly successful economic power"

(Moved here from User talk:Binksternet)

Hey, good day! I don't understand why you [Binksternet] felt it so necessary to revert the edit to the article, was it not correct or valid? Taiwan today is indeed a flourishing democracy and a strong economy. I tried to be as neutral as possible whilst stating the facts, and I also was not quite finished either. I'm really surprised you reverted the edit so quickly, honestly. Please reply, sir, I am still working on some articles, when I was suddenly caught off guard by your surprise message. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your contribution for several reasons. The first was WP:COATRACK, bringing in promotional wording about Taiwan, hyperbolic puffery ("vibrant and highly successful") that is not realistic. The second was WP:LEAD which says that the lead section should be a summary of article content. You said that Taiwan was the first Chinese-speaking democracy, but the supposed democratic qualities under Kai-shek have been described as an authoritarian one-party monopoly rather than a democracy. He did not really help Taiwan become a democracy. You described the military vision of Kai-shek in glowing terms, but he was a terrible military leader during the Japanese attacks and World War II. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I truly disagree. Chiang, while authoritarian and even sometimes ruthless, did at least lay the groundwork for "the first and only successful Chinese democracy". I am not Taiwanese, but Taiwan today is indeed ranked quite highly as a liberal democracy with strong civil rights. Without Chiang, Taiwan would not exist, that was my point. What do you mean by "puffery"? It is Chiang's Wikipedia article, should not his achievement also be highlighted, as is the case for many other military leader articles?

"he was a terrible military leader during the Japanese attacks and World War II". If you dislike Chiang that is one thing, but surely the article has lots of criticism of him already. And do you have sources for that statement? I honestly thought lots of people thought he was a fairly competent commander all things considered. I don't understand why it was so quickly removed, I thought it was a fairly okay edit, even re-reading the contribution, with all due respect. And there was also more material to cover also. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I am of course open to criticism, and I do try to keep an open mind, but I must tell you, this is why I mostly avoid Wikipedia, because I have heard that there are lots of edits and contributions very quickly and (according to some) unjustly reverted, which has honestly discouraged many people. Please understand, I only had the best of intentions, and didn't think anything I wrote was problematic, most country pages for example have also many extensive descriptions of their positive points. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Chiang's military record, the 1971 Macmillan book Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45 was very unfavorable about it. Modern viewpoints have not shifted to a more positive outlook, for instance British historian David Rooney's 2018 book Stilwell the Patriot: Vinegar Joe, the Brits, and Chiang Kai-Shek continues to describe Chiang's military prowess in very negative terms. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand, so you thought it was wrong to portray a more positive outlook on Chiang, is that it? What exactly did they say that was negative, and how so? Are you perhaps not a little biased against him yourself? If you truly want, we can easily ask for a third opinion(s), but I kind of hope we can somehow resolve this between ourselves. Of course, I can tone down or change parts of the edit, if you really insist, but I am still surprised why you immediately reverted my edit. I have no idea what "puffery" even meant before your unexpected reversion and comment. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And furthermore, Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911–45 the source you cited itself has a mixture of positive and negative reviews. "The book received a mix of positive and negative reviews." I am truly a bit surprised that you feel so strongly about this, I mean, are you a history expert on Chiang? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, my reversion of your edit was because of your non-neutral portrayal of Chiang and also Taiwan. This conversation should be moved to Talk:Chiang Kai-shek so that other interested parties can comment. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, I do not agree with that assessment. What do you mean by "non-neutral?" A dozen different users could have a dozen different conflicting opinions on that definition. He has been criticized considerably in the article already, and bias surely can be negative as well as positive. I have little experience resolving these disputes. Did Chiang not secure China its Permanent Security Council seat? And Taiwan is what it is, the 8th largest economy in Asia, the first and only Chinese-speaking democratic state. That was the entire point of the edit, that he laid the groundwork for Taiwanese democracy developed and he stood as a victorious leader in the Second World War. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course we can easily go to the talk page, but given its severe lack of activity from previous sections, it is unlikely it will generate much attention quickly. And I don't understand, so am I not allowed to edit the article at all? Again, I wish to resolve this in a quick and positive manner, I do not usually spend much time on Wikipedia these days, but I had hoped to try to join because I honestly thought I would be able to contribute something. But perhaps I was wrong. Please - I can certainly change some parts, but no, I do not agree entirely with your revert. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The lack of activity on the talk page belies the great activity on the article itself. If you start a conversation on the talk page, many of the article contributors will see it, and some will respond. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You are allowed to edit the article. The WP:ONUS guideline says that disputed additions must be left out until consensus for inclusion is achieved. You can prune your intended contribution and experiment with less controversial changes. You can start a discussion on the talk page to gauge consensus. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure, I mean, the last section, "Chiang Kai-Shek and Lend-Lease hoarding?" was posted 2 months ago, and not a single user responded. My friend, I am only trying my best to have a positive experience here on Wikipedia while contributing with what little I can, I honestly had plans to make further contributions, but again, your reversion has delayed that by several hours. I won't deny that I am very surprised by this. I had no idea, frankly, that someone would revert my edit less than half an hour later. Are you willing to allow some of the edit through at least? Why do you insist it had to have been taken out? I know you must also be busy, and I am again most willing to discuss this openly. Are you willing to consider some compromise, so that we can settle this quickly for now? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am actually working right now, listening to an audio stream, checking for audio quality issues rather than content. I don't really have the time and energy to sort this all out right now. You should engage other editors on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And if you do allow the edit through, or most of it, I will leave the article alone for now, if that might satisfy you, and refrain from making further edits for now. Or if you want, we could perhaps discuss this privately?

Edit: Ah, I see. Please, I had no desire to disturb anyone at work, but I was honestly going to add more things than that, before I suddenly got your message. I too was diverted from my plans today, I assure you. I will consider opening a section, but if no one responds in a month or two, then I'm not sure where that leaves us. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the wikilink to foot binding or your quotes taken from Taylor. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Then please, why did you remove them in the first place? (Could you not have simply trimmed the edit, somewhat? Or perhaps you were too hasty?) That was my point, I was only trying to add what I saw were facts to provide the article with a clearer balance, about Chiang's achievements and his personal beliefs, which I thought was quite lacking after browsing the page. Thank you, and I will try to add those back if you do not mind. What of the starting section then, or the part about Chiang's son? Again, believe me, I too found this very unexpected, and I have no desire to prolong this dispute any further than necessary. Are you available now? Again, although I really was planning to add more information, I will refrain for now, if you also make some concessions, thanks a lot! ConeWalsh978 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sir, I've been browsing Wikipedia for several hours waiting for your reply, hoping for a quick response, yet none came. I am sorry if you are busy, but understand that I too had planned to make further edits, only to be abruptly stopped by your message. I am a bit tired now, but I hope we can continue to find a way to resolve this in the near future. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And after doing some more browsing there are already other problems with the article in itself: the source provided in the starting paragraph I changed is linked to an old 1960s book by Fitzgerald so obscure that despite my efforts, concerning the "rise" of Communist China that I can't even find a sample of it online. To discredit Chiang, you cited two books (neither of which I've heard of), both of whom are extremely pro-Joseph Stilwell, even though Stilwell and his legacy itself, as Wikipedia also notes, remain a very deeply controversial and divisive figure today.

My other point being, Chiang is one of those major but very complex historical figures in the West that lots of people have a thousand different slightly different views on, even among modern historians. Some say he did more good than bad, others say that he did a mix of the two. Going to a random city in the USA and asking an American for their opinion on him, for example, I think most would say that they don't know much about him; others would remember him as a guy which was "our friends in the war" but had lots of problems. Still others would say even if he was a horrid leader with tons of mistakes, he still allowed Taiwan to remain free from Mao's rule, which is indeed something "good". He is too complex, but I still argue Wikipedia presents a pretty lifeless and flat picture of him compared to otherwise.

"Chiang viewed all of the foreign great powers with suspicion, writing in a letter that they "all have it in their minds to promote the interests of their own respective countries at the cost of other nations" and seeing it as hypocritical for any of them to condemn each other's foreign policy.[72][73] He used diplomatic persuasion on the United States, Germany, and the Soviet Union to regain lost Chinese territories as he viewed all foreign powers as imperialists who were attempting to curtail and suppress China's power."[74]

For example, even this statement seems dubious and pretty anti-Chiang in a subtle way. So are we to assume that Chiang basically hated all foreign powers throughout his life, end of it? No change whatosever in his views and perspectives? No specific nuance, no deeper debate or complexity to any of his thoughts regarding America or Britain or the Soviets? Just a bitter and suspicious old man who basically mistrusted and disliked everyone else, end of story? For example, what were his true general views on the United States for example? We must also remember that in WW2 and the Cold War, both the Imperialist Japanese under Hirohito and Mao's Commnunists also despised Chiang and tried VERY hard to discredit and smear him (Chiang was their major obstacle to seizing power in East Asia), so we must consider the possibility of propaganda, and sources critical of Chiang should be evaluated on their context and background. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

And the two sources (Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45 and Stilwell the Patriot: Vinegar Joe, the Brits, and Chiang Kai-Shek) that you cited earlier again, are very pro-Stilwell, but from his article, he was a lifelong Republican who used derogatory language against Chinese, Japanese and other ethnic groups in Asia. Regardless of your views on Chiang, I would strongly caution too positive a review on Stilwell either. I've been waiting for your reply for a while, and I am eager to hear your thoughts, I too wish to resolve this in a quick and easy manner, and to waste no more time arguing over details. ConeWalsh978 talk 14:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still stuck on your first wording about Taiwan, saying it was "a vibrant and highly successful economic power". That formulation is far too positive about Taiwan in general, and you were crediting Chiang with their later successes when most sources don't. From that introduction, I am now leery about the possibility of you making multiple small adjustments, the combination of which shift this article in an excessively positive direction. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I strongly preferred to resolve this between ourselves, and I do not think this is most suitable place to discuss this. But you are the one who reverted the edit, and as such, with all due respect, you yourself must provide very strong sourced justification for doing so. Taiwan is indeed a vibrant and highly successful economic power, and a close modern-day ally of America and Europe, with very strong democratic rights and freedoms, and Chiang's legacy is indeed tied deeply to Taiwan - and vice versa. And something else that the article doesn't mention is that Chiang did allow limited local-level elections in Taiwan during his reign, at least from what I have heard. Are you the one here to decide what is too positive or not? What is too positive for one person is too negative for another, and vice versa. I think I also was very careful in my edit. I don't understand, most of your edits are on music and songs, which I would never seek to contradict you on, as I have very limited expertise on that matter. Why is this article so important to you? You keep saying "most sources", and "far too positive about Taiwan", but those are your opinions, not necessarily the facts. Stating "Taiwan puffery" and then dismissively erasing everything I wrote is not enough, with all due respect. My simple point being, Chiang Kai-shek set up the current government in Taiwan, even their President Tsai as part of the DPP party recognizes the government which Chiang fought for and established. And again, if it means anything, I am not Taiwanese, nor have I been there ever in my life, I am simply someone who has read quite a lot about Chiang and East Asian conflicts. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not a truly appropriate forum to discuss whether Chiang in general did more harm or good for China / Taiwan, nor what most Americans / non-Americans people today think of Chiang. My other point is that this article as it exists seems to have so little about Chiang's character, only skimming over the barest of general facts, it feels kind of incomplete, and goes off in random tangents. I mean, it goes to mention more about Chiang's supposedly strong relationship with Muslims in eight paragraphs, which most historians as far as I know frankly do not even acknowledge or mention, nor was it greatly relevant to his rule in Taiwan, but has only two sentences about Chiang's own religious beliefs.

And also: "Chiang was suspicious that covert operatives of the United States plotted a coup against him." That is used to describe the entire relationship between the China and America, two of the world's most populous countries, over what 45-50 years? (Wow, what is this supposed to imply?) That Chiang basically hated all Americans? Did he truly have no positive words or feelings towards his major ally whatsoever? Or is that just what the article wants to convey for whatever reason, presumably to drive some wedge between Taiwan and the USA? Can it cite any real valid sources to provide us any insight into what Chiang truly felt about America in general for example? Did he genuinely hate America in general, or did he perhaps have complicated views, and only mistrusted certain administrations at some point which he felt might overthrow him from power? Much of this article is already very subtly designed to make most readers think of Chiang in a pretty negative way, a very poor manner, if I must be blunt.

There's no deeper analysis, no nuance, nor complexity, only a pretty negative portrayal of Chiang; he disliked the USA, he mistrusted all foreign powers, "he is often perceived negatively as the one who lost China to the Communists (in the USA and Europe)." My point is, bias on a certain major article can surely be negative as well as positive, and this article is fairly biased against Chiang already. I only sought to provide some highlight of certain positive contributions and achievements, which I thought deserved mentioning. Whatever his faults, my edits were not factually wrong. He was the major Allied world leader in Asia who stood victorious in the war against Germany and Japan, he was the leader of the "non-Communist China" during the Cold War and was a close American ally, whose myriad actions allowed Taiwan to exist as it is today, and the USA did support him for decades. If I were an American and I read this article, I'd probably have a very poor and low opinion of Chiang, and would need to read primary and secondary sources (which I strongly recommend) to develop a more deeply nuanced view.

Chiang played the Soviets and Americans against each other during the war. He first told the Americans that they would be welcome in talks between the Soviet Union and China, then secretly told the Soviets that the Americans were unimportant and that their opinions would not be considered. Chiang also used American support and military power in China against the ambitions of the Soviet Union to dominate the talks, stopping the Soviets from taking full advantage of the situation in China with the threat of American military action against the Soviets. This too sounds a bit biased, portraying Chiang again as some kind of very cunning and manipulative two-faced puppetmaster of some kind, not at all worthy of trust or honor. What exactly did this source state about Chiang doing so? Can anyone provide the exact text regarding this supposed "playing" of both countries?

P.S. I am not saying that I am the greatest expert on this person either, but I do have a degree, possibly seeking further education in the future, and I for one have read extensively and in very close detail into some of the major historical books concerning Chiang (other than the Stilwell books you mentioned, which I've never really heard of personally). ConeWalsh978 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC) 16:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I visited Taiwan in 1983; I was most impressed by the museum showing art pieces taken from mainland China under orders from Chiang. But I'm not in any sense a China or Taiwan expert. I'm just well-read on a variety of topics. A dilettante.

My take on Taiwan's current power is that it is an economic bubble based on support from global partners and inaction from the PRC. Taiwan is exceedingly vulnerable to any disruption of shipping,[8] facing the possibility of complete economic collapse following a naval blockade. Multiple pundits have been describing this scenario for years, for instance Maritime Terrorism in 2006 which says "The international community appears to have become progressively more cognizant of the general vulnerability of global shipping as a result of the largely unpoliced nature of the high seas." Sure Taiwan is relatively powerful now, but if shipping became a contested issue, a drastic reordering of Taiwan's ranking would result. (China's economy is also very vulnerable to any shipping disruption.) And of course Taiwan could be ruined by a notional Chinese missile attack.[9]

But all of this is getting very far away from the question of whether Chiang should be credited with modern-day success in Taiwan. I would want to see explicitly statements to this effect in published sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

And I do not have any specific sources on hand, I only browsed through the article several times and noticed some of the citations, perhaps you could ask another user, but I am not sure whether much is mentioned about Chiang's rule in Taiwan, something else that should be expanded upon. My point is very simply, and I ask you gently not to overthink this, I again said, I think several times, that I was open to toning down the edit, yet you chose to remove everything I added. ("Rv Taiwan puffery", your own words, I had no idea what puffery even meant honestly, and you also complained about "non-neutral portrayal of Chiang and also Taiwan"). And yet, for all his controversial acts and problems, without Chiang Kai-shek, no modern-day Taiwan because had he not retreated there with his government, the ROC, Taiwan would be a province of China today without any democracy, and that is already opening yet another can of worms, as I know very well that Taiwan's current political status is a very controversial issue on Wikipedia today, from some discussions I've read, and I would much rather not bring in others, as there is enough tiresome debate over Taiwanese vs. Chinese politics, Taiwan's current status, as it is.

"Taylor notes that in the pre-WW2 years, while Chiang and other Nationalist Chinese leaders were indeed fascinated by certain elements of German culture, such as their military discipline, which they saw as having successfully unified and modernized a severely weakened and isolated nation: "Unlike the Japanese, Chiang showed no interest in duplicating the key aspects of Nazi ideology: racial supremacy, territorial expansion, and hemispheric if not world conquest. In his diary he never mentioned, much less welcomed, any of the milestones of the rise of fascism in Germany such as Hitler’s elevation to chancellor, the Reichstag Fire, Germany as a one-party state, or the naming of Hitler as Führer. Chiang was fascist in neither ends nor means." He also asserted that unlike Mao who was shaped by both Marxism-Leninism and ancient Chinese Legalism, "for Chiang, the Confucian precepts of conformity, harmony, stability, and practicality, along with Sun Yat-sen’s reformist ideals and concept of political “tutelage,” fashioned the Nationalist leader’s authoritarian methods and his expectations of human progress." Chiang goes on to describe the national spirit that China must revive as one that embraces “loyalty, filial piety, virtue, love, harmony, peace, propriety, righteousness, purity, and a sense of shame." These were not the sort of spiritual virtues that Hitler, Mussolini, the Japanese fascists—or for that matter, the Chinese Communists—sought to renew. Chiang could be heartless and sometimes ruthless, but he lacked the pathological megalomania and the absolutist ideology of a totalitarian dictator [who was] more self-delusional than hypocritical about his benevolent objectives." I think that is not an unreasonable conclusion of Chiang when evaluating everything he did. And this book is significant in that it draws on primary sources from Chiang himself to support the author's final analysis on Chiang, which much older and arguably more outdated books from the 1960s and 1970s, such as Fitzgerald and Wakeman, I presume, fails to do. Because of Cold War politics and the loss of China as an ally, we must also consider that those much older and mostly deceased historians were perhaps feeling bitter from China turning into an enemy from an ally, and therefore biased against Chiang also. Yet the newer book was published by Harvard University Press, and has mostly positive reviews academically, go to the reviews tab on this website: [10] The impression of Chiang I have from reading other books on him, from newer Chinese-focused historians which I've read not so long ago, such as several by Rana Mitter, also characterise him as someone who tried his very best to protect his country in pretty desperate and hopeless conditions overall. Mitter for example doesn't paint Chiang's actions such as Chinese famine of 1942–1943#Causes as necessarily excusable, but in fairness perhaps quite understandable. It was literally, to Chiang at least, an absolute critical matter of China's survival or no survival against the Japanese and their war machine who were conquering huge parts of their land every week and seemed almost unstoppable, with no real middle ground possible, in the middle of WW2 with very limited outside assistance. Most of Chiang's actions were I think truly because he felt he had no other choice, or at least no other good choice. He very likely didn't enjoy causing deaths (which does set him apart from other controversial figures), he simply felt the sheer survival of the many far outweighed the needs of the few.

And on a general note, without Chiang's military leadership in the Pacific War, his fierce and staunch refusal to surrender to the Japanese despite overwhelming odds against him and most of his nation I think in already horrible and barely standing conditions, tying up 4 million Imperial Japanese troops in the Far East, I am not sure if America could have won the Second World War. He literally declared war against the true fascists of Europe and Asia for nearly 4 years, and sacrificed 3,211,000–10,000,000 troops in the Second Sino-Japanese War while doing so, having gone only to the Germans for some assistance because every other Western power including America had literally refused, time and again outright, to intervene to save his country (isolationism). His military was the one which fought (although unsuccessfully) to prevent the Nanjing Massacre, he was the one to establish China and America's first alliance and promote true friendship between the two countries, he stood strong with America in the Cold War against the combined militaries of Mao and Stalin (and later others) for nearly three decades until his death in 1975 (and most of his wartime allies did not even attend his funeral). And Taiwan today, where the last remnants of his republic barely survived, is both politically and economically a true miracle of East Asia, and I think, someday for all the Chinese people. His is NOT the legacy of the genocidal Axis leaders, but something else, something much different, something which built Taiwan a hopeful future, and perhaps, well, perhaps more than just Taiwan. Like or dislike him, he is an incredibly complex, multifaceted and prominent world figure. And yet, this article seems to pretty blatantly depict Chiang as some kind of cruel, flat and nearly emotionless man, distant and manipulative, who had very few redeeming values or accomplishments whatsoever; he was highly suspicious of America, he played both the USA and the Soviets, he was proud and mistrusted every other country, In the United States and Europe, Chiang was often perceived negatively as the one who lost China to the Communists. etc. So most Europeans and Americans only see him as corrupt and a failure? There is so much about this article that does seem to be weirdly slanted against Chiang, for example, summing up Chiang's entire relationship with America, spanning in total about four to five decades, in that section to this Cold War-era coup and this supposed nefarious CIA plot to overthrow his government. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC) 17:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

And so, my last point is, your assertion of lack of neutrality is particularly difficult because although I personally think assessments of him have improved at least somewhat since the Cold War's end, there seems to be no clear modern consensus on Chiang, either in American or non-American public opinion, still much less in modern Western or Chinese / Taiwanese scholarly and academic debate. Chiang is one of those figures which lots of people hate, yet just as equally as many people, I think fervently love or at least kind of respect. Go to any city in China or Taiwan, or even the USA, and honestly, I imagine you will get a thousand different opinions, as I mentioned. It's so easy to paint Chiang as something or someone not great, but when you take a broader look and consider those existing alternatives, from the Japanese to Mao to even Stilwell, it is difficult not to feel for him. Yes, he was non-democratic, but he was also America's closest ally in East Asia for the last two global conflicts, and he was the one who accepted the Japanese surrender as a major victor for the Allied Powers.

It is all but impossible to remain completely unbiased for anyone regarding such an immensely complex and divisive character. My basic point yet remains though, that without Chiang, both Taiwan and all of Asia today would not be the way that it is, he is the reason that the Republic of China, which as I indeed wrote, and which you so clearly found objectionable, "the latter of which exists today as the first and only successful Chinese-speaking democracy as well as a vibrant and highly successful economic power". Chiang's son might indeed have been responsible for Taiwan's democracy, but Chiang himself was overall responsible for its survival. That's not something from my perspective that is easily dismissed or overlooked. In short, for better or worse, and I hope you now understand my meaning, both Taiwan and Chiang's legacies are too deeply intertwined for one to remain untouched by the other. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

And on a more relevant note, the article does clearly itself state that, "Presiding over a period of social reforms and economic prosperity, Chiang won five elections to six-year terms as President of the Republic of China" (so does that not in itself indicate that it was Chiang who at least partly helped modernise the Taiwanese economy AND society). And further from the President of the Republic of China article:

"On 20 May 1948, Chiang Kai-shek was formally elected by the National Assembly to be the first term president. After the KMT lost Mainland China in the Chinese Civil War, the government was evacuated to Taiwan, where the term limits for the president specified in the 1947 constitution were suspended after 1960.[note 2] In 1954, as the term of the first National Assembly were about to expire, the Judicial Yuan ruled that the expired seats of the National Assembly would continue in power until the respective delegate region elections could be held. This largely froze the membership of the National Assembly mainland delegates and prevented local Taiwanese from widespread legislative and assembly participation in the expired mainland seats until the early 1970s. The members of the National Assembly continued in their office until 1991, and continued to elect Chiang Kai-shek as president until his death in 1975." So if Chiang was indeed legally elected by the ROC's democratic system, can we really label Chiang as a "dictator" at all, technically speaking? Or not? For example, when it comes down to it, did or did he not allow any elections in Taiwan whatsoever? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, Chiang is one of those uniquely complex figures whose legacy lives on in BOTH a modern democratic state (Taiwan) and a modern non-democratic state (China), both of which are extremely successful in their own way, and that is why it is possible for lots of people today for a variety of motives and from a variety of backgrounds to attack and defend him at the same time. Another point being that both Taylor and Mitter (the two main 21st century historical writers on Chiang's life and military career) actually present a very positive view of Chiang after their research into primary sources in China, Taiwan and elsewhere. Let's not talk about his beliefs, or Chiang's son -- I just want to focus on these two statements.

"Presiding over a period of social reforms and economic prosperity, Chiang won five elections to six-year terms as President of the Republic of China..." (So does that not mean he did indeed contribute considerably to the Taiwan Miracle, whatever his other mistakes and failings? And that he was indeed legally elected as President?) ConeWalsh978 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

And hence what I wrote here: "He is also remembered as the leading world leader of the Allied Powers in Asia, whose military leadership allowed China to contribute significantly and emerge as a victorious power in the Second World War against both Germany and Japan." [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConeWalsh978 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

My problem is that this article seems to carefully use borderline fringe or arguably obsolete sources and tries blatantly to present them as the mainstream historical view of Chiang today. For example, Fitzgerald's 1964 book cited in the opening paragraphs, "The Rise of Communist China" -- even disregarding his nearly exclusive focus on Mao's Communist Revolution, what did he say exactly about Chiang? That Mao was some kind of hero who overthrew the corrupt feudalists and that Chiang was an insane dictator or something? While I have not been able to access any online sample of the book, this particular review states that Fitzgerald claims that "that due to the government diligence no Chinese people were starving during drought in 1950s, and that all citizens are happy with the system" and that he likely relied on Mao's propaganda", which casts doubt on its legitimacy. And what was his exact quote regarding Chiang? [12][13] This is what I don't get, while repressive and autocratic certainly, did Chiang ever make for example, frequent bigoted remarks against other ethnic groups, such as Koreans and Malaysians for example, or ever indicate that he sought to imitate Hirohito's expansionist conquests, either in China or later in Taiwan?

- As for Wakeman, which has long been cited, his writings even when they were published about half a century ago were hardly free from criticism, nor were they uncontested by other historians. This states that the subject even today remains "highly contentious", and Wakeman has certainly been heavily disputed by several other China-familiar historians, including prominent Asian-American historian and professor Maria Hsia Chang in the past:[14]

- And Taylor specifically refutes and directly casts very strong doubt on his assertions in his 2009 book on Chiang. Wakeman seems to have come to his conclusions about Chiang over some much-cited 1930s "speech" given by Chiang about restoring the national spirit of China or something like that. Taylor states, as per above quote, that even were the source reliable and valid, Chiang still did not show indications of hateful racial hatred or desire for conquest of other Asian states, to make the Chinese race supreme or anything like that, only a desire for traits such as "loyalty, filial piety and a sense of shame", only to help his country and his people, not to deliberately hurt or take from others. Taylor (who is practically Chiang's only major biographer which I can find of the 21st century, and his book is academically reviewed here [15][16][17][18]) points out that the primary source might have come from Japanese propaganda sources, perhaps at the time to make Chiang seem less appealing to the Western democracies, who were carefully wary of both Germany and Japan, and to further alienate Chiang from them, to weaken his image or something and drive some rift in between them; think about it, certainly, the Japanese would have benefited tremendously in that time period, if American leaders carefully distanced themselves from what they saw as an Asian version of the German leadership.

Taylor argues that this source is likely from the Toyo Bunko, this supposed "secret speech" from Chiang regarding the Germans: - This is from pg. 616, in the list of total references to Taylor's Chapter 3, and he casts doubt on the sources which both Eastman AND Wakeman used in their research for Chiang, which might or not have overlapped, as they both lived in roughly the same period and were perhaps even influenced by each other. This is from his book, per his words:

-32. Lloyd E. Eastman, “Fascism in Kuomintang China: The Blue Shirts,” China Quarterly (January–March 1972): 1–31. The material is said have appeared in something called “Toyo Bunko.” The same citation also lists a Japanese foreign ministry document by Iwai Ichii. One wonders if Iwai’s source could be the “specially bound” document. Significantly Professor Eastman, in a review article written fifteen years later—“The Rise and Fall of the Blue Shirts: A Review Article,” Republican China 13, no. 1 (November 1987)—notes that new material has corrected some of his previous views on this subject, and he does not repeat the alleged quotation from Chiang Kai-shek.

-33. Wilbur Burton, “Chiang’s Secret Blood Brothers,” Asia (May 1936): 309. I am unable to locate this publication in the Library of Congress or elsewhere to check Burton’s own citation. Healthy skepticism seems warranted. Burton’s quote is cited by Frederick Wakeman Jr., “A Revisionist View of the Nanking Decade: Confucian Fascism,” in Reappraising Republican China, ed. Frederick Wakeman Jr. and Richard Louis Edmonds (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 141.

Basically, Taylor, whose book again is published by Harvard's press, states that both these sources often used to detract Chiang are very dubious in themselves and difficult to rely on especially today. Rana Mitter's books on Chiang as I have read them, while mostly focusing on his WW2 military career defending China from the Japanese, has always praised him very highly, as an unlikely but steadfast hero who saved the Chinese people against incredible odds and near-impossible conditions. And I'm not sure if there are very many other mainstream historians, Western or otherwise, who have written about Chiang over the past 2 decades. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This also has struck me as a bit surprising and questionable. "4,212,000 Chinese perished during the Second Sino-Japanese War and Civil War starving to death or dying from disease during conscription campaigns." Is there a second source to back this? I'm not sure the website cited here is so reliable, honestly. [19]

"Then there was the process of conscription. This was a deadly affair in which men were kidnapped for the army, rounded up indiscriminately by press-gangs or army units among those on the roads or in the towns and villages, or otherwise gathered together. Many men, some the very young and old, were killed resisting or trying to escape. Once collected, they would be roped or chained together and marched, with little food or water, long distances to camp. They often died or were killed along the way, sometimes less than 50 percent reaching camp alive. Then recruit camp was no better...Probably 3,081,000 died during the Sino-Japanese War; likely another 1,131,000 during the Civil War--4,212,000 dead in total. Just during conscription." But frankly, what data does this website show for this allegation? 4.2 million deaths from conscription alone? But how were so many buried during the midst of the conflict, what of their families? This is the first time I've heard this claim, and I think even most Chinese people would be thoroughly shocked. That is a massive number and requires very strong sourcing, indeed roughly equal to the combined regular AND militia soldiers of Chiang's army, about 4.3 million people, in 1946 during the Chinese Civil War, as cited in the article. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Taylor's view should override the views of others. Taylor is an outlier at this time. Taylor's peers acknowledge that he is a revisionist author, seeking salvation for Chiang's tarnished reputation, which means that a tarnished reputation is the mainstream position. The 2007 book Madame Chiang Kai-Shek: China's Eternal First Lady, says that Taiwan's economic success was founded on United States business interests investing in electronics factories and more, because they wanted to have non-communist business partners in Asia. Taiwan was seen by the US as a convenient base of operations in Asia, the final base in a chain of island stepping stones across the Pacific. The modern success of Taiwan is not linked to Chiang explicitly. Statues of Chiang in Taiwan were defaced or removed after his death.

A 2016 Harvard-published book, Accidental State: Chiang Kai-shek, the United States, and the Making of Taiwan ISBN 9780674969629, describes Taiwan's success as being driven by the United States, with Chiang playing a lesser role. By 1953, the US was calling the shots economically. The biggest economic leaps occurred in the 1980s after Chiang's death. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I also was at first skeptical, so I did some research. Did you read Taylor or Mitter's books specifically? With all due respect, I think it is almost the other way around, it is the article which stresses outdated and increasingly fringe Cold War sources from long-deceased historians, rather than focusing more on the much more prominent and relevant 21st century modern historians of Chiang's life. Wakeman is arguably the real "revisionist" - he literally titled his article: "A Revisionist View of the Nanking Decade", because it was I think so non-mainstream at the time. And what "others", exactly? You mean Fitzgerald's 1964 book on "Communist China" and the like, I assume, or the Stilwell the patriot-focused books? They are the mainstream consensus? I thought Taylor was largely considered the authoritative source on Chiang in the 21st century, and as I have clearly mentioned, the only major recent biographer of Chiang, drawing unlike much older historians from primary sources (older historians during the Cold War had much greater difficulty gaining access to them), such as Chiang's actual writings. In fact, Chiang was still alive when some of them wrote on him, therefore little chance to access his writings during their research. Perhaps that is why and how he came to a clearer conclusion about him. As far as I could tell, Taylor's is the most popular 21st century book on Chiang, and honestly, the first real extensive book which I personally could find on him. And as you have once again overlooked with your single review link, I provided at least 4-5 other links of Taylor from modern scholarship that are largely supportive of his findings and research, which I will place here again: [20][21][22][23][24] The other two 21st century historians cited on this page, Mitter and Fenby; Mitter has been to China for his extensive research into Chiang's WW2 years, I think he even still lives there although I'm not sure, also is very empathetic towards Chiang mostly, while the other historian mentioned in this article, Fenby which I am less familiar with seems more neutral but still much less critical than older historians, I think. Even the article itself has admitted that newer historians have formed a much more "moderate" and balanced assessment of Chiang and his successes and failings. Nor are the three of them the only ones to have a somewhat less critical opinion of Chiang; for example, Arthur Waldron, another American history professor, has likewise done much long-term research into the WW2 China period, and he seems to have a fairly positive view also. In short, yes, Chiang's reputation has not been that great, he was often blamed for corruption and the like, but there has been a real effort to form a more complex and nuanced picture of him in recent years. Edit: This might also interest you, two official reviews of the biography by the Washington Post and by the British Economist: [25][26] ConeWalsh978 (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

But I admit, it seems as I mentioned, very difficult even nowadays to find any mainstream historical consensus on Chiang in those matters, I think going to a random history of China / Taiwan professor in America or Europe, a third would be slightly positive, focusing on his achievements in unifying China, defeating the Japanese in WW2, and his role in establishing Taiwan; a third would be slightly to somewhat negative, focusing on his various failings and mistakes; and a third would be mostly neutral or conflicted about him generally. So let's leave things like the Wakeman debate and Chiang's personal beliefs alone for now, let's put that aside, it's a very huge and sensitive issue that I'm sure people will still be endlessly arguing about five decades later, I honestly don't think we can easily come to a final definite verdict right here and now.

I want to instead focus mainly on two main points this particular statement from the article: "Presiding over a period of social reforms and economic prosperity, Chiang won five elections to six-year terms as President of the Republic of China...." So what does this mean, exactly? That Chiang's regime, although certainly harsh and repressive and far from enjoyable, nevertheless allowed certain social reforms and economic development of Taiwan regardless? So was Chiang responsible for the Taiwan Miracle or was he not? Or did he start the initial development, and his son later fasttracked the process? One can criticise Chiang and severely condemn his wrongdoing, but in fairness, we should also perhaps give him a little credit where it is rightly due. (I will also try to read the Accidental State book to get a clearer picture of Taiwan's economic situation, but it might take a while.) And some sources like this one state that the "local elections" even during the controversial martial law period were still mostly democratic. [27] So the other point is, did Chiang allow elections or not, and he was a legally "elected" leader during his years on Taiwan or not? For example, the President of the Republic of China page seems to give relatively vague and ambiguous descriptions of the process during Chiang. So your take also was that America was responsible for the Taiwanese success story? I do not dispute that necessarily, but what role did Chiang play in Taiwan's development? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My best impression is that while it is true that his rule on Taiwan was a repressive period of marital law, and several thousand civilians and intellectuals were indeed tragically targeted, detained and killed, millions of Taiwanese people also at the same time saw a drastic improvement in general economic growth and personal standard of living, the two are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive. In short, Chiang laid the foundations for the Taiwan Miracle, and his son basically realised its fruition after he passed away.

The Chiang book is also discussed here, and this user, familiar with history, claims that "Taylor is definitely pro-Chiang: however, most of the anti-Chiang books are written in a time long before and were heavily influenced by works such as Red Star over China, which is an accurate but heavily romanticized view of the early Chinese Communist Party. Chiang also tainted a lot of the historiography of his own history by essentially subjecting the people that had escaped to Taiwan in a thoroughly anti-communist and pro-Chiang education." [28] I quite agree with this view; it is notable how critical analysis is seemingly encouraged here at all times, but so many people simply shrug and nod when reading statements with supposed sources, and do not bother whatosever to critically evaluate or carefully examine those same sources. Also remember Taylor wrote other books and papers also, his research was certainly NOT exclusively limited to Kai-shek only, for example, he also wrote extensively about China and Southeast Asia; I would also strongly recommend reading Taylor's other book, written 9 years before his one on Chiang, his older book was focused on Chiang's son, a much less controversial figure who is nearly as criticised by the Taiwanese, and his complicated life and career. [29]

This biography link of Chiang from History: [30] does mention this: "Backed by American aid, Chiang launched Taiwan on the path of economic modernization, and in 1955 the United States signed an agreement guaranteeing Taiwan’s defense." I am quite open-minded and if you have other highly reliable 21st century secondary sources on Chiang you think I have missed, I am eager to know of them, perhaps some of my views will also change. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Re-reading the article, I also noticed this statement: "Chiang’s land reform more than doubled the land ownership of Taiwanese farmers. It removed the rent burdens on them, with former land owners using the government compensation to become the new capitalist class. He promoted a mixed economy of state and private ownership with economic planning. Chiang also promoted a 9-years free education and the importance of science in Taiwanese education and values. These measures generated great success with consistent and strong growth and the stabilization of inflation." [31] ConeWalsh978 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, okay, on a last note, I'll be brief here, not all of us can afford to be here almost 24/7, and after discussing this for many days, I frankly don't have the time or energy any longer right now to easily resolve this, and so, very soon, I will now logging out for quite a while. It's been 4-5 days since the last response other than my own comments and I do not want to wait here by myself much longer, I certainly did not expect this to be so easily made into a real disagreement. Although I still honestly feel the article has considerable bias, even some blatantly misleading, out of context and incorrect information, and other myriad issues, after some discussions with other users, I also feel it might be best for me to read more deeply into further secondary sources regarding this historical figure to expand and re-evaluate some of my views and stances also. I will try to find a way to access and read some of the books and sources mentioned here throughout this discussion, for example the books regarding Stilwell and the "Accidental State" book. I hope this discussion can end for now, and thank you for your time and patience. :) ConeWalsh978 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverted the recent pagemove

I have reverted the recent page move, as this shows that Chiang Kai-Shek is still the predominant English language name in reliable sources, even down to the current day. Per WP:UCN, we should favor the most commonly used name. Furthermore, the name it was moved to was the third most commonly used name, even Jiang Jieshi was much more common than Jiang Zhongzheng (though none, still, as common as Chiang Kai-Shek). --Jayron32 13:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just came to find out why Chiang Kai-Shek had been changed to something I'd never heard of, and you've changed it back. good. -Roxy the dog 13:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

war mispelt as wat

someone mispelt war as wat in the section about corruption, about in the middle 2604:3D09:6A7F:82C0:ED73:C6D3:F1A8:3BD5 (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the heads up. Chewings72 (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Atrocities comitted by Chiang Kai Shek's Governement

There is a remarkable lack of mention of the number of people massacred at the hands of his government. There is lots of useful sourced info in this page: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

Some of this info could be added to the KMT page and the History of China page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Blaming Chiang for the deaths of the civilians caught in the floods or in the conscription campaigns or other KMT actions between 1937 and 1945 during the resistance against the Japanese is inaccurate at best or deliberately hypocritical at best. Chiang ordered the levees breeched because Japanese troops had defeated the Chinese forces in the campaigns from Shanghai to Nanjing in 1937 and some means had to be found to keep them from driving into the last areas under KMT rule. Chiang's actions were no different than that of the Dutch when they flooded the lands around their cities in a last-ditch act to stop the Spanish in the Eighty Years War or Louis XIV later. The Belgians did something similar to slow the Germans in 1914-1915. There are other examples in world history. Those people died because of Japanese aggression, just as surely as the innocents at Nanjing in 1937 or the millions of people who were murdered, died from disease or starvation in the areas under Japanese occupation. It is one thing to murder millions of people during the "Great Leap Forward" or the Mao's revolution and blame Chiang for deaths directly related to Japanese operations. 206.39.41.4 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Rudolph Rummel is a historian with considerable personal political biases, just like Grover Furr. He also denies human-induced climate change, which is a universally accepted truth by modern scientists, and supports NATO interventions globally. I wouldn’t uphold his numbers as a universal truth by citing them on Wikipedia. LeonChrisfield (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Rummel's argument stands apart from the rest of the article. I have not seen other historians calling Chiang a killer for the flood, famine, and conscription. Senorangel (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@LeonChrisfield: Grover Furr is not a historian. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

'exiled' etc. nomenclature

‎re: the pondering in the diffs by @‎LeonChrisfield et al, now I've got to wondering: how exactly is it debatable? He wanted to be in China, he saw himself as important to China, but he was kicked out of China (as it were) and he was not allowed to return to China. That seems squarely like 'exile' to me, but I suppose the word does feel a bit over-incisive. Remsense聊 23:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I was not the one who reverted the edit. I think you should talk to the person who did about it. LeonChrisfield (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

yes, my bad! i was not meaning to challenge anyone per se, I was just curious what people thought but lazily only tagged one person :) Remsense聊 23:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But yes, the word “exiled” is usually used for governments that lost all territories and are on the loose under foreign protections. LeonChrisfield (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Change in infobox image

Current image

Proposed replacement

I propose a change in the infobox image for the subject. The proposed image is an official portrait of Chiang from 1955, which is the one used on Chinese Wikipedia. Personally I believe the new image looks better, and more in the style of historic politician portaits (e.g. Mao or Zhou Enlai). Fellow KMT commanders such as He Yingqin and Chen Cheng all have official photos of them in suits taken from around the same era, instead of them in military uniforms. I'm pinging some notable editors (who are still active) of this page, sorry if this bothers: @Remsense:, @JArthur1984:, @LeonChrisfield:,@LlywelynII:,@CWH: Zinderboff(talk) 09:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this for the reasons stated. Remsense诉 10:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Your rationale makes good sense to me as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree -- it's fine to have an "official" but not military photo at the head of the article, esp. since we have a range of styles in the images down the page.ch (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Birth country Qing Empire or Qing China?

What should we refer to the China that was led by the Qing dynasty: Qing Empire or Qing China? Also says birthplace as Qing Empire on the Sun Yat-sen article. Alexysun (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Be wary of WP:OTHERCONTENT as an argument in itself. I frankly think it's clunky to list either in the context of an infobox. It's not relevant here since he was born in a different polity than he died in, but it's not that bizarre much of the time in the case of China to omit the dynasty in one or both parameters imo. If we have to list something, I think "Qing China" is bad, but "Qing Empire" is worse. "Qing dynasty" is likely the most correct on Wikipedia, as it's a pretty natural synecdoche when referring to the polity. I might prefer simply "Qing", but that wouldn't really work on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 06:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok. You said a lot of things without offering a definitive solution. His article on the Traditional Chinese Wikipedia states his birthplace as "大清浙江省宁波府奉化縣溪口鎮玉泰鹽鋪". 大清 directly translates to Big Qing or Great Qing. So I'd say Qing Empire or Qing China isn't bad. Alexysun (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I did, though. I mentioned two options that I do not like, and an option I prefer.

If we don't make choices based solely on what other English Wikipedia articles say, then we surely do not based on what other language Wikipedias say. We're trying to choose terminology that's well-understood and natural for an English language audience. That's probably simply "Qing dynasty", which is also the article name. By comparison, "Qing China" and "Qing Empire" are not the terms preferred by most writers, and they look a bit clunky and unnatural. When in doubt, use the article name. Remsense诉 07:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Ok I get what you're saying now. You're trying to use terms that are most commonly used/understood in English-speaking society. Alexysun (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As is policy on the English Wikipedia, yes. Remsense诉 14:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that the corresponding article on Chinese Wikipedia currently actually states his birthplace as "清朝浙江省宁波府奉化县溪口镇玉泰盐铺", where "清朝" means Qing dynasty. Clearly it is the norm (EDIT: what I meant is that it is the norm even in the Chinese language). --Wengier (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

While I do think this gestures to evidence, there's certainly a lot of Chinese-language style norms we don't adapt across wikis into English, Remsense诉 17:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course, Chinese-language style norms and English-language style norms may be very different, such as in the case of Northern Yuan. But in this case, it is actually the norm even in the Chinese language. --Wengier (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)