Talk:Chinese Civil War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shouldn’t it be a stalemate?

The war never technically ended and tensions are still flaring up. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call this a frozen conflict? I feel like calling it a PRC victory is propaganda in order to diminish the legitimacy of the Republic of China, which is still recognized by other nations. GigaDerp (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the size of the territory that each side ended up controlling (see [1]), I'd say one side clearly won. Vpab15 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Regional warlord's role in the war

Does warlords have anything to do with this conflict? Warlords might pledge loyalty and even deploy forces to resist and hold against their lands or allow nationalist force to move through their territory. However, the warlords have little to no mention in this article and briefly described as a band.This war could be a multi-sided conflict with warlords betraying both sides and other warlords.\ yes. Chiang tried to control them, to varying degrees of success. One showed he was ready to destroy the ccp if needed but at that point japan was coming back, so Chiang said "if you surrender, I'll attack you first, then japan, then the ccp."

section on sino-japanese war is rather innaccurate

It says that the CCP did relatively little fighting, and that the ccp-kmt collaboration was in name only. No. Just No. Just because they fought on different fronts does not mean they did not collaborate. And asking the poorly armed Eighth route army to fight directly along with kmt troops would be useless and wasting their value. The ccp did not, as it is implied, just wait for the KMT to win but be severely weakened. Mao literally wrote the book that helped the Chinese win the war. The eighth route army controlled larged swathes of land BEHIND enemy lines. These areas were often attacked by the japanese so they suffered heavy losses. They did engage in warfare, often delivering heavy blows to japan such as in the 百团大战。 In addition most of japan's railways mining oil etc was all heavily hindered. And then there's the part where the "new forth army harrased kmt troops". if so, do you think they'd really retreat when asked? It was all part of Chiang's willingness to get rid of the ccp as soon as the war settled down a bit. And no, this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's literally proven with telegrams and Japan tried to take advantage of this. The new 4th endured attacks from the KMT army, it was not until their commander was captured did they fight back. He was sentenced to five years of jail. And why? To weaken the ccp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.171.145 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

too vaguely presented with other intermingled Chinese civil wars

The article overlooked the importance of internal (if there was a de jure KMT) conflicts between Chiang faction’s KMT vs other factions, especially like the Central Plains campaign 1928-1930 paralleled with (what this article’s claim of purely) CCP-KMT conflict. Chiang did not take CCP as priority target before defeating other factions within KMT. Even during the peak of the so called Long March, Chiang admitted that part of the purpose to send his faction’s KMT over the retreating CCP troop was to gain control of minor warlords’ territories CCP merely passing by. And this also contributed why CCP painted the Long March as military miracle while actually minor warlords’ half measures to passively assist Chiang contributed greatly. This article overlooked these critical factors to analyze. 142.186.93.240 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Chinese Communist Party (Pre-1996).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Frozen conflict in the infobox

it's pretty silly and detached from both reality and sources to have the fact that a peace treaty was never signed be reflected so prominently in the article — Remsense聊 16:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. You should delete it. I tried to do so just now but for some reason my preview doesn't look right so I didn't make the change. The correct point is already handled by the infobox references to Taiwan strait conflicts. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done— Remsense聊 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Remsense Nobody wrote it's a frozen conflict. They instead wrote the fighting ended without a mutual agreement between the two sides. Which is true.

@JArthur1984 Hello, I know you haven't replied here in months but hope you can read this and don't mind me inviting you to join the thread below. I see that you are that editor who sorta agreed with Remsense. I kindly ask you to review my arguments below and reassess if it's reasonable to remove the wording in infobox that the fighting had ended with no peace treaty. I think such wording should come back as omitting it, may mislead people into thinking that both sides have officially agreed with each other when the fighting stopped, when that is strongly not the case. Your participation in our discussion is of course voluntary, but your participation would be

much appreciated.Totenkopfeternal (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PRCFounding.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

it's "CCP" not "CPC".

the name for Mainland China's Communist Party has been agreed to (by the CCP article itself) be referred to as "CCP". as I have a new account (have been using IP in the past), I cannot edit yet. Someone please review my comment. thank you. Joséthewikier (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Both are used, and both are acceptable, as long as use is consistent within a given article. Remsense诉 07:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

the problem is that it isn't consistent for this article, and it makes most sense to change all the "CPC"s to "CCP". most of the sources (other than the most primary source straight from the Party's mouth) refer to the party as "CCP" rather than "CPC" and I think if we were to aim for consistency, we should change all to "CCP". I don't know though, if everyone else disagrees, please be consistent the other way and change all to "CPC" (along with other Chinese politics related articles too). Thank you! Joséthewikier (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems someone changed it recently from CCP. Regardless, the standard here would be intra-article, I think. I'll make it consistent. Remsense诉 07:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to you! Joséthewikier (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

War is ongoing?

Hello, I have a question about the article stating that the war is finished. I do think that's incorrect and technically the Civil War never formally finished. So shouldn't it be correctly noted as 'Not formally finished' in the Dates? Totenkopfeternal (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No. The infobox is meant to be a summary, not an exploration of every technical nuance of a subject. The war is over, regardless of what documents didn't get signed. A summary that implies that it's technically ongoing is not technically correct, it's myopic misinformation. Remsense留 01:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the prompt reply but I have to disagree. I can see that the last sentence in the top section mentioned there was no armistice or peace treaty signed. I also know that there is still an ongoing dispute over who owns Taiwan. So the overall Civil War is not over, and it be misinformation to imply it got settled and no more developments of it, given that background. I think there should be a mention in the results section that says "no peace treaty or armistice signed but active fighting has ceased".Totenkopfeternal (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There is not a state of war between the two parties/countries by any reasonable definition. This is what a summary should communicate. There is plenty of room in the article itself to describe the nuances of the post-war period. Infoboxes are not meant to carry anything but the broadest summaries of a subject—a lot of ink has been spilled in the past few years paring infoboxes down after years of stretching them to carry information they were not meant to. Remsense留 01:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Who gets to decide this war is over? According to many experts I have read, the war never ended. It just shifted means, modes and tempo. But the "war" continues to this day even if there is no active fighting for the current period. I think a summary should reflect that and say "active fighting ceased but no armistice nor peace treaty signed". It is accurate info yet doesn't say the war is over, but it instead just informs readers and let them decide what it means. Totenkopfeternal (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you cite these sources? Because that certainly who does get to decide these things onwiki. Remsense留 02:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course.

The Chinese civil war has never ended – it has just shifted means, modes and tempo, and the “war” has continued to the present day.[2]

The underlying truth in Taiwan is that the Chinese civil war, started in the 1940s, has never formally finished.[3]

Totenkopfeternal (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, those are two sources. Both are op-eds attempting to make an abstract rhetorical point, and not works of history trying to outline the straightforward facts of history—and are therefore unacceptable for these purposes. Your first one even puts "war" in scare quotes.

(I hope you will agree that the following tertiary sources are acceptable to establish WP:DUE-ness, of which this is a matter.

• Encyclopedia Britannica – Date: 1945–1949 [4]
• Historical Dictionary of the Chinese Civil War by Christopher R. Lew & Edwin Pak-wah Leung – the final, decisive stage of the war ending in 1949, the period after described as the "postwar" period [5]
• The Chinese Civil War 1945–1949 by Michael Lynch – has it in the title, and says "there is a sense in which [the war] never ended", but also repeatedly refers to the end of the war in a straightforward sense being in 1949, talks about the postwar period after that time, talks about two states emerging from the war.
• China at War: An Encyclopedia by Li Xiaobing – describes the Civil War as ending in 1949.
• China's Civil War: A Social History, 1945–1949 – describes the Civil War as ending in 1949.
• China: A New History by John K. Fairbank – describes the Civil War as being won by the PRC in 1949.
• The Cambridge History of China: Volume 13 Republican China 1912-1949. Part 2 edited by Albert Feuerwerker & John K. Fairbank – describes the "Third Revolutionary Civil War" as ending in 1949.

If your argument is about a technicality, that is a non-starter: the infobox is not for technicalities.

If you are arguing there is consensus in sources that the war is truly ongoing in a straightforward sense, and did not end decades ago, that also seems to be indefensible, and detached from the reality of what sources are saying.

People move between the two countries, companies operate in both countries, there has not been open warfare—skirmishes and territorial crises and disputes do not a state of war make unless you refuse to see the forest for all the trees in the way. Or, it's just editorializing, trying to spread a technicality and a specific framing of the cross-strait dispute following the retreat to Taiwan out into an insinuation that the war isn't actually over somehow, which is myopic misinformation. Remsense留 03:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I glanced at the edit history of the page. It had that statement saying, '"Major combat ended, but no armistice or peace treaty signed"', in the results section for at least several years. I couldn't be bothered to scroll back continuously but I see the article had listed that in its infobox since November 2020 and it appears many editors have most likely seen it over the years, and yet they didn't remove it. Was only recently, did you alone remove it 2 months ago, despite the information was correct and summarizes accurately the lack of mutual conclusions to the fightings.

However I am not suggesting to write in the article, that the war had not ended. Instead propose to re-add in that long time wording that "active fighting has ended without a peace treaty," which I believe is still a very important fact to mention in 'Results' infobox and let readers decide how to make of it. Such information is supported by every single China scholar and there's nobody even denying that fact.

Yet you keep saying that the war is over and it's myopic misinformation to make it appear it's not over. In which I disagree with your opinion as nobody can honestly say it's over for good. Because if China invades tomorrow, I doubt people will then call this a new war but instead they would likely refer to it as a "new phase" of the Chinese Civil War and picking up where they left off. Hence you are only speculating that the war is over and seem to want to believe that's the case, despite it's not an open-and-shut case at all. And as long as the war has no formal ending and the two sides looks increasingly to go to war in these past years, I believe the old wordings that have already stayed here for many years before your recent change, should be restored. Totenkopfeternal (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was reformed after my bringing it up on the talk page and getting agreement for it. I provided 7 sources of categorically higher quality that go much farther towards proving any consensus.

There is no parameter in the infobox for "period without a peace treaty", there is a parameter for the span over which the war took place. That is what should be there.

I've tried to narrow down what the logical arguments could be, but you still seem to want to mash all of them together even though you cannot justify any of them individually. This especially shows in your fantasizing about how future sources will definitely react to hypothetical events. In the future, please don't bother with rhetoric like that, it's worthless.
The criterion is fairly clear: establish that a majority of relevant reliable sources straightforwardly say that the state of war that began between these two parties is ongoing—not as a rhetorical term of art, not as a technicality, but literally. Remsense留 05:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again I should emphasize that I am no longer suggesting to write in the article that the war had not ended, but it does seem to be your strong opinion that it had ended for good, in which I only address in this thread. But there are no hard grounds to believe that it had ended for good and I have explained that strenuously to you above. BUT I ONLY WANT to re-add in the wordings, that is strongly supported by all sources and not denied by any, to show that the end result as we know it, is inconclusive and not ended with mutual understandings. I am concerned of the risk of misleading readers into assuming that the two sides had agreed to a treaty and have concluded everything, by removing the very important information that the fighting had ceased without a mutual peace treaty or armistice. Because you seem to want to present the war as if it's a done deal and nobody is allowed to continue the war as it's over forever. Which is your base argument and I explained why that is just wrong.

And why I wish to restore back the long time words that '"Major combat ended, but no armistice or peace treaty signed"', and only that, because it's very necessary to show the context of how the fighting ended.

Also I only see just one person above agreeing with you. Hardly a large consensus. And I disagree and is what brings me here. I think more than one editor should weigh in as I challenge that consensus of just two people. As this information, "fighting ended without peace treaty and armistice" is very important and shouldn't be removed, particularly when you consider such wordings bave already been on this article's infobox for a number of years without issue before.Totenkopfeternal (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Hankow idk (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason based in policy or RS for this, it is an extremely tendentious presentation based in nothing but your personal opinions about the parties involved. Please consider citing sources or making arguments rooted in specific site policy before seemingly trying to reignite a debate I spent too many hours having to quash. Remsense ‥ 论 22:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I wasn't trying to reignite a debate. I was just agreeing to what Totenkopfeternal said. Hankow idk (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to sound overly crass, but bare agreement rarely adds much to Wikipedia discussions; it's only visual noise for those trying to review the consensus for arguments—which is not merely a matter of voting. Remsense ‥ 论 23:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The Problem is that "war" is not used here in a legal sense, which would take place between two nations and according to international law would require a formal declaration, and therefore it was not "formally finished" because it was not "formally begun. "Civil War" is much looser, not legally defined, so there would not have to be an armistice or peace treaty, although there sometimes are such things. So I agree that 1949 is the consensus date.ch (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)