Talk:Kuomintang/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive or Not?

Archive or Not? Explains itself... Liu Tao (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Gold Standard Script"

Boy, this is a picayune point if there ever was one, but here goes:

In the section Chiang Kai-shek assumes leadership, I believe the word wanted is not "script", but rather scrip, meaning paper money of arbitrary value, for temporary emergency use. Scrip can easily be subject to hyperinflation if not backed by something of real value. Also, note the link for Gold Standard Script is a dead link. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Good pick up. The Chinese name of the notes in question is "gold yuan ticket", and scrip is a much more apt translation than "Script", which makes no sense in this context at all. Given that the paragraph seems unsourced for that translation, I've changed it to "scrip" until someone can bring in a better referenced name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Material?

There has been a bit of material added to the article over the past few weeks, however many of the material seems to be more historical rather than current. For example, the new 'Ethnic Policy' is entirely about the KMT policies and actions back in the pre-1940's, none of it reflects the current ethnic policies of the KMT. The list goes on and on, but I think we get the main idea. Liu Tao (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - ideally, everything outside the History section should be current. See for instance how the Republican Party article is written. I think we could move all the historical material either back to the History section or to the History of the Kuomintang article. There's probably also a lot of duplicate material between these two articles. Laurent (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of the ideology section from "Ideology" to "Ideology in Mainland China (1920s-1950s)" to indicate that it does not reflect the current ideology of the KMT. Could someone add in a section about the current ideology soon? Klaw117 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

There's a lot of irrelevant information or information being inbappropriately added here. VNQDD shouldn't even be in this article, it is by no means a 'Vietnamese KMT'. It has no official ties to to KMT, there is no need to even introduce it into this article. Maybe make some sort of mention somewhere in the article or in the History article. The same is with a lot of other stuff that should be moved to the History article, not here. This article is becoming more and more like talking about a historical party, not one that currently exists. Liu Tao (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest creation a new article somewhere along the line of "Ideology of the Kuomintang", and move the info there. The material on the VNQDD should go, with only a passing reference - there is no similar mention of the VCP on the CCP article.--PCPP (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy with the VCP and the CCP does not stand up. The VNQQD had direct links to the KMT in Nanjing, the VNQQD spent over an entire decade in exile in the ROC where it effectively functioned as part of the local KMT parties in the provinces. the VNQQD joined the Viet Nam Cach Menh Dong Minh Hoi- "Viet Nam Revolutionary League", which was under direct control of the KMT, whose stated goal was to unite with China under SanMinZhuYi. the VCP never had a similar relationship with the CCP. its the current VNQQD that has no official ties.Дунгане (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if that is so, the VNQQD is only a section amongst the hundreds of KMT factions. At most it should only be mentioned in the KMT article. This article talks of the KMT as a whole, not its individual factions. Liu Tao (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative name - undue weight

In the lead the article mentions the alternative translation "Chinese National People's Party". I think this gives this view undue weight since this is not a commonly encountered translation on a par with "Chinese Nationalist Party" which it follows. I suggest moving it down into the body of the article or into a footnote rather than leaving it in the lead as it may be misleading to readers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

National games and sports under the Kuomintang

http://books.google.com/books?id=bs1Qw7yv-DQC&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=bs1Qw7yv-DQC&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Move Ideology to History of Kuomintang

How does one go about getting this done? I don't see a reason for it on this page. It'd be like talking about how Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and Richard Nixon's Watergate on the Republican Party page for America. What's the point?

Unless there are objections, I'm going to move Ideology in Mainland China to the KMT History page where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

think tank

This think tank called National Policy Foundation was set up during Kuomintang’s time in opposition from 2000 to 2008 to keep its policy research alive. Perhaps this can be added to the template? — Kaihsu (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Aboriginal support for the KMT against the DPP

http://books.google.com/books?id=RLcDLDQsgy0C&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Meaning

What does "Kuomintang" mean? Caeruleancentaur (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in the first paragraph of the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it means Chinese nationalist party: look for the 3rd line of the first paragraph. Dadapotato (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Associated groups

Coexistent gangs which KMT members were a part of before they joined or founded the KMT and merged the gang acitivites with the party.

Tiandihui and Hongmen - Sun Yatsen around Guangdong and the south in general

Gelaohui - Huang Xiong

Green Gang - Chiang Kai-shek around Shanghai

Gangs founded by KMT members.

Sun Yee On Heung Chin, Teochew

14K Triad - Lieutenant-General Kot Siu-wong, Hong Kong

Four Seas Gang - Taiwan

Bamboo Union - Taiwan

Chen Chi-li, Tung Kuei-sen, Wu Tun

Targets -

Henry Liu

Rajmaan (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Factions-

CC Clique

Political parties-

Tibet Improvement Party, VNQDD

Question

Is there something about the Kuomintang of Canada? I began to search but nothing was seen.207.253.54.66 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have reliable third-party sources on Kuomintang of Canada, which establish its notability, you may add the information to the article along with the citations. --Yaush (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Legislative election results: Government?

"Kuomintang #Legislative elections" section now shows the table as below:

Election	Total seats won	Total votes	Share of votes	Outcome of election	Election leader
1998	123 / 225	4,659,679	46.4%	38 seats; Government	Lee Teng-hui
2001	68 / 225	2,949,371	31.3%	46 seats; Government coalition (Pan-Blue)	Lien Chan

Legislative elections do not form the Government of the Republic of China. Under the Chinese seperation of the five powers, the legislative branch is large independent of other four branches of the government. For example, the head of the executive (Premier) is appointed by the president without seeking legislature approval. Is it misleading, if not incorrect, to list the legislative election outcomes as "Government/Coalition/Opposition"? How about using descriptions such as "Majority/Minority"? --Jabo-er (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What a Mess!

This article is quite incoherent, even chaotic at times. It is also repetitive. Most of it reads like an advanced English learner's third or fourth try at a longish essay.

It's good that some folks are trying to write a good article about this important subject, but before editing it (i.e. "publishing" it), they really should think more care carefully and arrive at a decent draft first. Just my 2 cents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.206 (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are worse articles than this. Kissinger 04:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zio jew (talk • contribs)

Muslim references

I'm no expert on the KMT, but are the references to Muslims (even the word) not excessive in this article? The word Muslim alone appears 61 times in the current revision (quite high when you consider "China" only appears 172, and Taiwan 72). The article on zh.wikipedia.org doesn't once contain any words I can think of for Muslim (伊斯兰 回 清真 穆斯林 etc.) The Chinese article is shorter, but it isn't that much shorter. Nor (from what I can discern) do most of the other language articles on the KMT. I'm not suggesting the current information to be false, but it reads as though the KMT are some sort of Islamic party, due to the (what seems to be, undue) prominence it gives the topic. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was the work of one editor who got over-enthusiastic about a niche aspect of history. You will also find his or her work littered throughout many Chinese history and geography articles. It is giving the Muslim-ness of certain historical figures undue prominence, but perhaps someone needs to work out a way of de-emphasizing this without losing valuable information that was added in the process. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed it is excessive and distorts the KMT. I trimmed away a lot of it. The solution is for the editor involved to start a separate article on Muslims in the KMT. Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, they've done a lot during the Chinese Civil War for the Kuomintang of China but I agree, we should make a different article.Ambroise.sammy (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Legislative elections

Why is this set up as if Taiwan were a parliamentary democracy? It isn't. Taiwan has a presidential system, so the terms opposition coalition and ruling party are completely inappropriate. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Currently it is set up as a semi-presidential system. I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate. Abstractematics (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Given Taiwan's current electoral system (FPTP with top up proportional representation, in addition to concurrent elections occurring at the same time), it's extremely unlikely that one party would win the presidency while another would win the legislative election. The people aren't usually going to vote a person into office, but fail to give them the mandate in the legislative branch necessary to carry out their agenda.173.67.20.63 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kuomintang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724054724/http://science-islam.net/article.php3?id_article=676&lang=fr to http://science-islam.net/article.php3?id_article=676&lang=fr
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5kwsPXN3Y?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563041/Kuomintang.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563041/Kuomintang.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/5kwsPXN3Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kuomintang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112133850/http://www.kmt.org.tw/english/page.aspx?type=para&mnum=105 to http://www1.kmt.org.tw/english/page.aspx?type=para&mnum=105
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906095406/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MODCHINA/NATIONAL.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MODCHINA/NATIONAL.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 13 December 2017 (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:

• Flag of VNQDD.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Democratic Progressive Party#RfC on replacing left–right position with cross-Strait position

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Democratic Progressive Party#RfC on replacing left–right position with cross-Strait position. Ythlev (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Political position

I think should add 'Right-wing' to the infobox. In Taiwan, liberals and leftists sometimes support not only center-left DPP but also more sharply left-leaning NPP or TSP. But almost all right-wing conservatives in Taiwan with Chinese nationalist tendencies overwhelmingly support the KMT. Therefore, the voices of hard-liners, not center-right ones, appear to be absorbed to some extent within the KMT. And I found sources that categorized DPP as center-left and KMT as right-wing.--삭은사과 (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ideologically and electrically, the political positions of DPP and KMT cannot be compared equally. If you have to write down KMT as 'Centre-right' in the infobox(rather than 'Right-wing'), DPP documents should say 'Centre to centre-left' in the infobox.--삭은사과 (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In light of the recent edits/reverts, would like to put in my 2c. I think it's OK to have both center-right and right-wing in the infobox. Generally I think mainstream KMT tends to be more center-right, but the right-wing history of the party can't be denied, and many of these elements survive in the party today (see Chiu Yi -- not sure if he's still officially a member but he was on the party list for a short time as recently as this year). DrIdiot (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@삭은사과:I'm sorry, what do you mean by "electrically"? Ezhao02 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ezhao02:I used "electrically" to mean "electrical engineering aspect". PFP and NPSU, formerly floor parties, were also on the left side of the KMT(Chinese nationalist camp). However, NPP or TSP rather exists on the left than DPP(Taiwanese nationalist camp). Of course, there are NP, which is more right-wing than KMT, but they lack influence. The political structure of the democracies in Northeast Asia is certainly different from that of the West, because Northeast Asia is quite conservative, alternative conservatives tend to be more moderate, and alternative liberals tend to be more leftist.--삭은사과 (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@삭은사과: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean by "electrical engineering aspect." Ezhao02 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "electorally"? DrIdiot (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think my command of English is poor. I will use different but contextual expressions. I'm sorry.... All I'm trying to say is that KMT and DPP are simply difficult to compare their political positions entirely equally. (The "electronic" I'm talking about is just a contextual error.)--삭은사과 (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the DPP's position isn't entirely important here anyway. Should just cite on reliable sources, otherwise veers into original research. I'm fine with the page as-is. DrIdiot (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@삭은사과: Thanks, I see what you mean now. Before I respond to the arguments posed here, are we talking about the overall political position of the KMT or about the cross-strait political position? Ezhao02 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am speaking to the KMT in overall political position. However, apart from that, I think the infobox should have both the general meaning of "political position" and "cross-strait political position."--삭은사과 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for confirming. If you had been talking from the perspective of the cross-strait political position only, I'd argue that there could easily be less staunchly right-wing voters than staunchly left-wing voters. However, since you're discussing the overall political position, I think that, if anything, "right-wing" should be listed as a historical political position, since the party has shifted from right-wing to center-right since the transition to democracy. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the current KMT is completely center-right. There are still right-wing figures left in the party. Similar to the KMT is People's Party (Spain). In particular, during the dictatorship of Jean-Jes, the KMT took a political step closer to "right-wing to far-right".--삭은사과 (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Did you mean a different name than "Jean-Jes"? I think autocorrect might've changed it to something else. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct the typo. I wasn't trying to say 'Jean-Jes', I was trying to say 'Chiang Kai-Shek'.--삭은사과 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. You're definitely right about that: Chiang Kai-shek's KMT was on the more extreme end of the political spectrum. But wouldn't that apply to its historical position? Ezhao02 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That's right. It's a historical position. However, the "historical" position of the party currently active is not included in the infobox.--삭은사과 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

But if "right-wing" is just the historical position, not the current position, wouldn't it be better to just list "center-right"? Ezhao02 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The KMT was "Right-wing to far-right" during the dictatorship of Chiang Kai-shek, but moved to "Centre-right to right-wing" after democratization. This is why I compared KMT with the case of the Spanish People's Party. The Spanish People's Party and the KMT did not say goodbye completely in their dictatorships' legacy.--삭은사과 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. However, isn't this case slightly different than the People's Party case, at least in terms of sources? For the Spanish People's Party, there are very many sources that describe the party as right-wing in addition to the majority of sources describing it as center-right. However, in the KMT's case, the vast majority of sources describe it as center-right, with only a few sources saying "right-wing". Would you argue that this difference is due to the KMT's location in the ROC, which is unrecognized by many countries and whose Free Area is less populous than Spain? If so, is there a way to prove/show this with sources? Ezhao02 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In Taiwan politics, cross-strait position is more important than centre-right position. Thus, unlike the Spanish People's Party, the KMT is often described as pro-China rather than left-right position. That is why the KMT, unlike the Spanish People's Party, is not so often referred to as the centre-right political position, but would rather be referred to as "Chinese nationalism" or "pro-China." For now, the KMT is a party that idolizes right-wing authoritarian Chiang Kai-shek, and this is hardly at least a centre-right political position.--삭은사과 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the KMT "idolizes" Chiang Kai-shek; the party may respect him as an important leader/dictator of the party, but that doesn't mean that they truly support his policies (for example, the modern KMT is definitely democratic). Additionally, the sources I've seen almost always describe the KMT as center-right, not right-wing, if they provide a political position on the left–right spectrum. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Are there other sources for this not currently on the page? DrIdiot (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying sources for political position or for something else? Ezhao02 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I think the way to resolve this is not a debate between editors (since this would involve WP:OR) but to figure out what Wiki policy is on such matters, but it seems to be vague. Something similar seems to have been brought up before: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Political_parties#Ideology_issues. Party constitution is going to be useless here... but maybe finding recent academic sources is the best way. But it's difficult to do a comprehensive literature review. I'll ask around and see what I can dig up. DrIdiot (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! You're definitely more experienced than I am with this. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

OK did a Google Scholar search for "since 2016" and looked at the first 5 pages of papers that covered post-2016 politcs and found: (1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030438716300369?casa_token=ogltFb47ePYAAAAA:geC0HgcfiZuBz371kVFK8t1n5Y2Sr71UJYnexcCDrnNe9fl5pW1QlkNA6cefBsk5Z9SXzGCjhw says Hung Hsiu-chu was "too right-wing" (less relevant, Lee Teng-hui took down "two challengers from the right" in 1996); (2) https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/13211 (no mentions); (3) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1013251117500023 can't get access (4) http://ecite.utas.edu.au/135753 no access (5) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-77125-0_3 is also not very useful but discussed right-left a lot -- but never assigns a position to KMT other than to say KMT and DPP are both "on the right" for matters of international trade (in my irrelevant opinion this is a bit silly, since small countries obviously look at international trade differently than big ones) DrIdiot (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is there's support for both positions for now. I'll add reference (1) to the page. "Center-right" most certainly has to stay, amongst the currently cited sources are 2 academic ones. DrIdiot (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What would you say to my proposal of listing Right-wing as the historical position, not the current position, of the party? Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the first Q is whether "right-wing" is a current position, which I think the reference above supports (based on my very cursory literature search). But if we decide the answer is no based on a deeper lit review, then the Q is whether historical position goes in the infobox which I'm not sure -- would have to look around. DrIdiot (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I entered "kuomintang" into Google Scholar, restricted to articles since 2016, browsed the first 5 pages of results and picked the ones that looked like they were talking about politics since 2016 (and not historical KMT, which were a lot of the articles). DrIdiot (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your response! I'll look to see if I can find anything else. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Why the name of this article must be 'Kuomintang'?

'Kuomintang' means 'National Party'. If other countries' national parties, for example, the national party of South Africa, it is written as 'National Party'. But why is it 'Kuomintang'? Unlike Golkar or Likud, I think it should follow 'National Party'. If not, other national parties also change their name. Like Spanish national party, National Party → Partido Nacional. I wonder why is it in 'Kuomintang'.--SouthSudan (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, we use the WP:COMMONNAME used within English-language literature. English sources refer to the political party more commonly as Kuomintang, hence that is the name used on Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

On that subject though, the COMMON ENGLISH name is Kuomintang tout suite. If someone thinks the official English name is "Kuomintang of China", that's fine but it belongs in an "also known as" or #Name section. The head of the LEADSENTENCE should be the same as the article title.

In actual English, absolutely no one calls this party "the Kuomintang of China" because the use of the Chinese name makes it perfectly clear who's being discussed. On the other hand, while I'm sure "Kuomintang" is retained for historical reasons, pinyin is the official romanization scheme of the ROC now as well and Guomindang is increasingly common and should be mentioned in the lead. — LlywelynII 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding a comment here because I just reverted an edit to this effect, but virtually nobody refers to KMT as "Guomindang" or GMD outside of Chinese (PRC) English news sources. DrIdiot (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I will revert the reversion. A quick search of Google Books for “Guomindang” finds at least ten pages of hits, showing that Guomindang and GMD are quite common, perhaps even predominant. Jonathan Spence’s standard text in the 1990 edition, i.e. thirty years ago, footnotes “Guomindang” with the explanation “Until recently romanized as Kuomintang,” indicating that he thinks that GMD is now standard. page 279 ch (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately your source is wrong. Kuomintang yields 1,640,000 results on English Google and Guomindang yields 273,000 results. KMT is more than 6 times as common as the later. Attempts to introduce pinyin as the officially romanization in the Republic of China did not start until 2009, 20 years after the publication of the book. Even then, a quick Google search reveals that virtually all media in English reporting on Taiwanese elections call it Kuomintang (See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Northern Moonlight 02:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Purge

Of course, it is not mentioned in Western that the party is being purged in Taiwan. Their bank account has been frozen by the current government and a spokesperson got their eye poked out some hours ago. --2.245.122.219 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

^-- not sure who wrote that, but it's from 2016. I live in Tainan City, Taiwan. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the Mayor belongs to the KMT party. Recently, it had a sweeping election and took up about 80% of the nations functional sphere of influence. There's definitely not a purge in Taiwan with regard to this party. Wishful thinking on someone's part. The party pretty much owns Taiwan through and through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.4.159 (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Fascism

Reading a lot into Italian Fascism of Benito Mussolini and the different factions within the Italian Fascist party (Syndicalists, military traditionalists, Nationalists, Corporatists etc) and the fact that the Fascist party was rife with Nationalists, former Socialists, Syndicalists, Militarists and former Marxists it seems the kind of Sketchy semi-Socialist, Nationalist, at one time accepting a Communist faction and constant fleeting back and forth from far let to far right ideas and constant position changes (often contradicting earlier positions) of the Kuomintang has close parallels with the Italian Fascist party.

Italian Fascism, the Kuomintang, Peronism in Argentina all seem to have a similar structure, to the point the latter two are almost de-facto forms of "Fascism", even if they did not refer to themselves as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.136.168 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. Adding "fascism" to a discussion of the KMT's history based on that would probably count as a sort of original research. Wikipedia generally prefers to cite things like this, especially when they're controversial. Could you provide any sources that also make this comparison (scholarly sources are preferred)? Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! -Ezhao02 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, its hard to find any sources that have a direct comparison to fascism. It is made harder by the fact its controversial as with any discussion into fascism, Which is a shame, I wish more could see past controversy, as the study of the workings of Fascism often help with the analysis of other ideologies and political groups. But I myself am no scholar, I just decided to put the idea out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.136.168 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We can't really add any comment about this into the article without scholarly sources, especially because of how controversial it would be. Thanks for your input, though! -Ezhao02 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I find it curious how basic Chinese history or the real history of socialism is deemed "controversial" while Wikipedia gladly accepts completely anti-academic discussions and decisions on whether Taiwan should be called a country or whether the vocational training centers in Xinjiang should be "re-education camps" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps with everyone providing reasonable discourse being censored... yet when someone makes the entirely rightful and obvious claim that ultra-nationalists who have been actively committing anti-socialist genocide for several generations and started a civil war by committing an anti-communist massacre should be called fascists, it's suddenly "controversal". I added two very clear sources (a book and an academic study, both published by Western university press - because if I cited Chinese research, we all know it would be deleted and called propaganda) that discuss the fascist past and factions of the KMT. We really need more discussion about anti-Chinese and anti-socialist bias on Wikipedia. It's one of the biggest and most important topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:7045:8480:B0E3:DC0E:825A:DDFA (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. However, if anything, "Fascism" should only be listed as a historical ideology of the KMT, and some editors disagree with the idea of putting historical ideologies in the infobox (in general). Ezhao02 (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sun Yatsen

I'm not an expert in this by any means, but one of the points my professor of Modern Chinese History hammered on was that the Xinhai Revolution wasn't by any means led or directed by the Tongmenghui, or by Sun Yatsen (who was in Denver, Colorado at the time). Maybe it's a minor point, but the section "Founding and Sun Yat-sen era" puts it as though Sun Yatsen and the Tongmenghui were the primary actors responsible for the Revolution, and perhaps doesn't give as much room to the view that Sun Yatsen's importance to the Revolution in some ways was an image that was created after the fact, to support his role as a symbolic figurehead of the KMT.

(Edit: I realized I was not signed in when I wrote this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che Migel (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I probably know much less than you do. Could you try asking your professor to provide you some articles that talk about that? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll ask--for now, see the Introduction Mary Clabaugh Wright wrote to "China in Revolution: The First Phase, 1900-1913. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1968.) under the heading "The Limitations of Revolutionary Leadership." She makes the argument that "The revolution generally failed to produce adequate leadership at any level and therefore power went by default to conservative local notables who certainly were not revolutionaries. Their success proved not that there had been no revolution but that it had been a revolution without real leadership."

Or see Jonathan Spence's The Search for Modern China, 3rd Ed. Chapter "The End of the Dynasty," in which after describing the Hankou incident as driven by one specific group of revolutionaries (not under any direct leadership of the Tongmenghui organization or Sun), he writes: "It now became imperative that some prestigious public figure take over titular leadership of the mutinous Wuhan troops and guide the revolutionary movement. Since Sun himself was overseas and there were no serious members of the Revolutionary Alliance [Tongmenghui] in the area, and no other local revolutionary social leaders considered suitable for the role, the rebellious troops approached the president of the provincial assembly, who cautiously declined." (pg 250-251). This account of the Hankou incident which was the catalyst of the 1911 Revolution makes it pretty clear that the revolution happened through decentralized incidents more than some central plan directed by the Tongmenghui much less Sun (neither of which/who were even in the area to post facto take charge of the rebellion!) Che Migel (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edit! Ezhao02 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Names for the KMT

I removed "Nationalist Party of China" from the list of names for the KMT in the lede, because it's very similar to "Chinese Nationalist Party" and there's truly no cause for confusion. This name is almost never used to refer to the party as it is today. It is sometimes used to refer to the historical party, e.g. in academic articles [1] [2]. Note "Chinese Nationalist Party" is far more common than "Nationalist Party of China". Furthermore, "CNP" doesn't appear in the first search results (but "KMT" does) and "NPC" is confusing (see National People's Congress). My proposal (which I've already done) is to only list the more common one, and not to list any acronyms since their use seems very rare and are not used in the remainder of the article. DrIdiot (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the wording regarding "Chinese Nationalist Party" can be tweaked a bit. I think it's worth noting this is used to note to the historical party, though there isn't a clear cut-off for when the name-change switched. DrIdiot (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: By the way, can you check the wording of my recent edit? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ezhao02: Thanks -- I did a little tweaking to try to separate out the "historical" with the "modern" -- let me know what you think. I think we should give equal weight to its historical and present-day incarnations (since both are of significant interest) -- in the new wording the historical period is now a clause, but it comes first, so maybe it's balanced? DrIdiot (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: It does seem better, but it might sound a bit awkward to have "in the Republic of China in present-day Taiwan." I couldn't think of a better way to word it, however.

Also, could you check the wording I put in the infobox for the political position? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ezhao02: Agree about the awkwardness. Let me try again -- I ended up rewording a lot of the first graf. Thoughts? The infobox wording looks good, maybe "mainland China" is more specific but also lengthier. DrIdiot (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: Thanks for the feedback about the infobox. I think your wording is better. I just noticed that "Chinese Nationalist Party" is already listed as the literal translation of 国民党 (sorry for using simplified instead of traditional). Do you think it's necessary to include it again at the end of the first sentence? I think maybe trying to bold it within the {{zh}} template might help get rid of some of the awkwardness. I don't know if the Manual of Style says anything against doing so, though. What do you think? By the way, I completely agree with the rest of your edits. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ezhao02: Sorry for the lateness -- saw your edit, looks good! DrIdiot (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: Sorry for pinging again, but what do you think of the IP editor's new edits? Ezhao02 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ezhao02: I did a partial revert. I like putting the other langauges in a tooltip. I think we should give "Taiwan" precedence over "ROC" because it's the common name; I put ROC in parentheses, since it's clearly relevant to the discussion. I don't think we have a uniform policy on when to use Taiwan or ROC. I think the guiding principle based on RfCs in the past is to use Taiwan when referring to the country and ROC when referring to formal positions or names in the gov't, since "Taiwan" is the common name and least likely to cause confusion. DrIdiot (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I agree with you. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Wording

"By 1949, the KMT was decisively defeated by the Chinese Communist Party in the Chinese Civil War and withdrew the Nationalist government to Taiwan, a former Qing prefecture-turned-Japanese colony that ruled from 1895 to 1945."

This wording is problematic. "Qing" refers to a political unit while "Japanese" refers to a nationality. It's equivalent of saying "the Rhineland is a former Bonaparte administration-turned-German province". It's not wrong but it's both awkward and has unnecessary implications.

Suggest: Change to either "Chinese prefecture-turned-Japanese colony" or "Qing prefecture-turned-Imperial Japanese colony". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.218.250 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Two sentences on sinicization are poorly sourced and don't mention a time period

The KMT pursued a sinicization policy, it was stated that "the time had come to set about the business of making all natives either turn Chinese or get out" by foreign observers of KMT policy. It was noted that "Chinese colonization" of "Mongolia and Manchuria" led "to a conviction that the day of the barbarian was finally over".

I'm removing these two sentences from this article (and the article on Sinicization) because it doesn't reference a time period and the sources are problematic. The Open Court and Frontier History sources do not support the sentences at all, or at least, the links provided for these sources don't support the sentence. Instead, I had to manually search for "day of the barbarian" in the Open Court source to find the exact same writings as in the first source. But even searching for that in the Frontier History source does not provide any relevant results. So this is not actually three independent sources, but rather the same singular source simply being published in two different journals, and the third source doesn't mention it. Searching for "KMT sinicization" on Google Scholar only provides results that talk about their post-1945 policies in Taiwan. The other issue with these two sentences is that they are both in violation of WP:WEASEL by using passive voice. I can't find the name of the author who actually wrote what is being quoted. If someone objects to this removal, please respond here on this talk page and explain your reasoning. --JasonMacker (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• ROC Executive Yuan Logo.svg
• ROC Judicial Yuan Logo.svg
• ROC Legislative Yuan Seal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The infobox

Should the "Historical ideologies:", "Right-wing Kuomintang" and "Left-wing Kuomintang" sections be moved from the infobox and be incorporated into the "History" section of the main text? Helper201 (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes: The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article's key information, which this currently isn't. Having this much information stuffed into one section of the infobox is highly excessive and just makes it harder for people to quickly and easily understand at a glance. It would also be beneficial to have this in the main text so it could be better explained and detailed as to when these factions existed, how they came about, who lead them, how big they were, power they held etc. Helper201 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: One of the main reasons I started this rfc rather than being WP:BOLD is because I don't think I could personally do a good job at incorporating this information into the main text, as I have little knowledge of the party, its history or historical factions. That's why I'm hoping if there is agreement to move this information into the main text then someone can please step in and do this. Helper201 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes The current interpretation looks awful. I would suggest moving historical ideologies down where it belongs and remove ideologies that are not backed up by sources. Vacant0 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  While at cleaning up the infobox, the "premier" and "director-general" parameters should be removed too. As far as I know, Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek are dead, there is no need to include them in the infobox. Move this to the text instead. Vacant0 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Helper201: This RfC seemed to have ended with only me leaving their comment. I think that you should be bold and implement these changes now. If someone disputes your edit, we'll discuss it here then. Vacant0 (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Th problem is I don't have access to many of these sources and I can only read English text, so I'd be unsure of where to put them in the main body of the page. You're welcome to go ahead with it if you think you could do so. Helper201 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the sources and implement the proposal when I'm able to. I'll also post my analysis after that here. Vacant0 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 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:

• Emblem of Control Yuan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2023 (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:

• ROC Examination Yuan Seal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Put far right as historical as it murdered many left-wing activists

Through its one-party rule it murdered lots of people, mainly left-wing activists Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"Historical" infobox listings aren't really that valuable. Plus, I think the CCP might have the KMT beat in some theaters as far as "murdering left-wing activists" goes. Also, please provide sources when discussing big changes to an article, like I've asked you several times. Remsense诉 18:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, another bit of advice I have is to not worry about infoboxes starting out as an editor: infoboxes are just meant to summarize the key facts already present in the body of the article. Look for parts in the body to improve first, then you can worry about how the infobox and lead summarize it. Remsense诉 18:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There is lots of examples of kmt officials, collaborating with imperial Japan you could at least put that in info box Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read the guideline pages I've been linking you, and compare with other well-developed infoboxes. Once again, I recommend focusing on things other than the infobox. Also, I'm not going to reply to any more claims you are making if you don't provide specific reliable sources we can work with, as the burden is on the person wanting to make changes to provide sources. Remsense诉 18:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I use sources from Wikipedia? Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You may not use Wikipedia itself as a source, that would be circular, but of course you can use sources cited in articles. But again, I doubt there's going to be any consensus to change the infobox the way you want it, given that the article is about the present party, and there are other articles that focus on other historical periods and situations involving the KMT. And again, it's mentioned in the body of the article: don't worry about the infobox when just starting out. Other editors might engage (though I doubt it) but I am not really interested in changing the infobox, I think it reflects the body of the article adequately as it is. So I recommend finding other ways to improve the encyclopedia first. Remsense诉 18:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok how would you position the kmt Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not an interesting question for me personally. Remsense诉 18:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)