Talk:Chinese Civil War

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

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 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 .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 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." "The underlying truth in Taiwan is that the Chinese civil war, started in the 1940s, has never formally finished." 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
 * 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
 * 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:.
 * 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 . 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)

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)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chinese Communist Revolution which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Noteworthy?
The Nationalists' abandonment of their capital in the mainland, seems historically significant because it symbolized their loss of control over mainland China to the Communist forces and marked the beginning of the division between the mainland and Taiwan. But is it important enough to be mentioned in the lead? It wasn't mentioned before so I added it in but not sure if it's important enough for the lead. 49.186.211.203 (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is already mentioned in the lead:
 * (Also, HISTORY.com is not a very good source as an aside.) Remsense  诉  07:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for the reply. Would it be alright to mention Project National Glory in the intro? That "President Chiang Kai-shek intended the retreat to be temporary, aiming to regroup, fortify, and eventually reclaim the mainland. This plan, named "Project National Glory," never materialized." I don't see that being mentioned in the lead despite it should be. 49.186.211.203 (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is too minor a detail to mention a later plan that never materialized in the lead of an article for what was a very large conflict involving millions of people over decades. Remsense  诉  07:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. I suppose I can understand that. Thanks again for the speedy cool reply. 49.186.211.203 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions, let me know if you have any more questions! Remsense  诉  07:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions, let me know if you have any more questions! Remsense  诉  07:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)