Talk:Kuomintang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article is being censored

You will see below in this discussion where wikipedians discuss "Kuomintang" vs. "Guomindang". You will see in the Kuomintang edit history, that "Guomindang" gets edited out whenever it is added. It is perfectly acceptable to call this article Kuomintang. But as Guomindang redirects to this article, there MUST BE at least a single mention of the term "Guomindang" in the article. However, when anybody tries to add "Guomindang" just for this clarity, it gets censored out. It must be a POV issue that I'm not aware of, but the article should be informative and NPOV. Add the term and say why it is not acceptable, but do not delete the term. (the comment "that's not what the party calls itself" is not good enough, the party does not and should not control this page.) 68.174.110.168 (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a box on the right of the article showing how Kuomintang is written in simplified and traditional Chinese. The box also contains a section called "Transliterations" which is hidden until the "show" link is clicked.

Kuomintang/Archive 1
Traditional Chinese	中國國民黨
Simplified Chinese	中国国民党
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Zhōngguó Guómíndǎng Wade–Giles Chung1-kuo² Kuo²-min²-tang³ Tongyong Pinyin Jhōngguó Guómíndǎng Yue: Cantonese Jyutping zong1 gwok³gwok³ men4 dong² Southern Min Hokkien POJ Tiong-kok Kok-bîn-tóng

This seems insufficient as "Guomindang" is used by a significant minority of English speakers. Readin (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Must point out

I'd like to point out that this article downplays the fact that the KMT massecred the Taiwanese people during the 228 "incident" which is de facto and de jure honored by the Taiwanese people and government as a holocaust. Many Taiwanese people would be offended, much like Jews if the holocaust was downplayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soviet Rebel (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Governor General Chen Yi, who massacred the Taiwanese people during the 2-28 "incident," is not identical with the KMT. Learn the difference. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes because all great things are attributable to the KMT but any wrongs are all the fault of individuals.--61.224.52.87 (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have proof of such a massacre? If you don't have slam-dunk proof that has stood up the court of international justice, we would welcome an apology for your slander. Bidness (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a holocaust but you are being purposefully provocative and not contributing to the discussion constructively.--61.224.52.87 (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whao, hey, that's enough. I agree with HK, but Bidness and Soviet Rebel, you two are going somewhat to the extreme here. The 228 incident was not a holocaust. A holocaust is the genocide of an ethnic group or society. 228 was not to that extreme.

And yes, there was of course freaking proof of a massacre, that much I will not deny, but as HK has said, and actually to add to it, one man's actions do not define his entire party. And besides, Chen Yi was executed for what he did. Liu Tao (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So because he was executed, the wrongs are righted, and the article should ignore this? The article needs to give proper coverage.--61.224.52.87 (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is utterly ridiculous that the 228 massacre and White Terror Martial Law period is simply glossed over. As are those that are trying to say Chiu Yi is responsible for it all when in fact the White Terror period goes on far longer without him. This whole "KMT is good, all the bad are from specific individuals" is a long apologist move (and logical fallacy) for all questionable actions by many a government, party, or organization from the beginning of time. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

mainlanders

how many mainlanders are editing this predominantely taiwan-related article? -Lucius

Few (but not none). See Internet Censorshipand Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. Please put most recent discussion at the bottom of the page (as a convention) .--Kakurady 11:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I also suspect that mainlanders are adding to this too. Dr. Sun Yat-sen and Taiwan are democratic in means, not communist. Dr. Sun, created the Kuomintang, but was quickly expelled. "He also hoped to free Chinese from graver forms of social exploitation by building a central government that would counter the rampant forces of capitalism in industry and of powerful landlords in the countryside. It was Sun's view that, in the early stages of China's regeneration, the country should be controlled by a rigorously structured central party, dedicated in loyalty to him personally as absolute leader. But through a carefully calibrated period of "tutelage," the Chinese people would be introduced to the principles and practices of representative government, until finally the tutelage would end and China could emerge as a strong, full-fledged democracy." I'll refer the readers to Edgar Snow's books. He is the American reporter who entered China almost 90 years ago to interview Mao as a student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoonpost (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kuomintang would not have lost its popularity if not its corrupted party. Agree?

What do you think? I've been checking many websites but have yet to find one that answers the question. Would love to hear the views from others. Prefably views from both who agree and disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Io'ana (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 February 2005 (UTC)

Please site your name, cheers. Many people believe that Chiang Ching-Kuo improved the party and the nation, but only to be corrupted again by Lee Deng-Hui even further. The New Party left KMT because some party members noticed that Lee's government was corrupt and that Lee was helping DPP more rather than KMT. Another reason that KMT lost its popularity was because of the racist comments made by Lee and DPP, as they labelled KMT as the party who puts Chinese's benefit in front of Taiwanese's. Even though this is not true, after hearing this for over 10 years many people start to believe in so. bobbybuilder, 1:33pm, 26 June 2005 (TST)

This article is not about "How KMT lost it popularity." and KMT still has half of seats in the Parliment.

Xplorer 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the reason the DPP was able to win the presidency twice was partly due to popular disgust with KMT corruption but also due to the fact that the DPP was able to capitalize on the resentment of benshengren against KMT suppression. And there were no doubt other factors, particularly the assassination attempt the second time. Xihe 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

- Reasons why KMT lost important elections such as the presidential election are corruption and illusion that the party would continue to win in election after ROC lifted Martial Law. KMT corruption has a long history, it could be trace back to the time before 1949 when KMT was in mainland China. I believe some other wiki people would know a lot about it.

With the economic miracle of Taiwan, rise of DPP and the so-called "Taiwanese" suppport started to grow and gained political influence in Taiwan when ex-president Chiang Ching Kuo was still alive. Lee Teng Hui held different opinion and belief other than the traditional KMT perspetive on politics, such move from Lee encouraged the DPP and other greeners to speak louder politically and to demonstrate DPP is the local mainstream. In the process of "localization" from Lee (which started from Chiang Ching Kuo)there were fights among the KMT between the local faction and the mainland faction. The result was that Lee won the political battle and took over the control of KMT and forced some members of KMT who later formed New Party (with the majority of mainlander support) out of KMT and introduced local black gold sponsors and other local influences to the KMT as his support. Mainlander influence started to decline in Taiwan as Lee accessed full control of Taiwan politics and went further on "Localization" within the ROC regime. Lee's effort on "Localization" finally led to the loss of presidential election of KMT (and the pan-blue coalition)to the DPP. After the loss of presidential election in 2000, Lee resigned in 2001 from the post of KMT chairman and started a new political party called Taiwan Solidarity Union which advocates Taiwan independence.

- The previous government was corrupt. The students, such as Mao Zedong, fought against them. Though later after the Communists, the KMT took over, the roles were reversed. Corruption continued, the students eventually again, rose up against the government. - The Rangoon Post co-editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoonpost (talk • contribs) 18:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Lee Teng-hui, pro-independent? separatist?

I don't think using separatist to describe Lee is POV. He wants to separate Taiwan from China even from the cultural prospect, and that is much more than pro-independent. bobbybuilder 22:35, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We are not merely expressing our opinions in this article. Just need to mention what he did and what was the reactions at the time. Xplorer 06:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

no, president lee said that democracy was compatible with chinese culture.

- Lee promotes status quo. The term he used while he was president is "special state to state", which means a (very?)special relationship not really two states nor one state between the PRC and the ROC.

Criticism

The "Criticism" isnt a good way of handling opposing viewpoints and staying neutral. We need to include criticism only as part of a more general discussion of the KMT's political platform and support groups. A live "debate" is not encyclopedic. --Jiang 8 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

I agree, I had initially hoped for a "point counterpoint" approach but this is sprialing out of control.-Loren 8 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

I do have to point out that it is ridiculous for the ruling party to complain about other parties "opposing it" and still wants to be called "democratic". It is even more ridiculous to think of it worthy to put on the Wikipedia.

Besides, I found lots of criticism in the history section already. It is unfair enough to say that the criticism towards the KMT government are considered as historical facts, and those towards the DDP government are "certain critical voices", but now adding another "criticism" section? Bobbybuilder 8 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)

This isn't so much a question of politics as how to convey information in a manner as neutral and balanced as possible. Someone saw it fit to include a separate section of criticisms on the DPP page. To maintain balance either a similar section should be included on the KMT page OR the section on the DPP article should be removed and the information merged into the main body of the article if appropriate in the context of history.

Personally, I am opposed to including criticisms of current policy on any political page in any form due to the risk of it turning into a political debate. We should limit ourselves to presenting party platforms only and leave it to interested readers to dig deeper and come to their own conclusions. My NT$2.-Loren 9 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

Insertion of grammatical errors

I made this edit because "which promotes Chinese reunification than the pan-green coalition" is not grammatical. "promoting" reunification is too harsh a label - they arent necessarily promoting reunification. They just support the notion that Taiwan is part of China, but on the issue of whether they should reunify, the mainstream KMT has not made a definite statement. In the same way, Chen Shui-bian isnt necessarily promoting independence since he says the issue is for the future when a consensus develops.

The politics template should be a footer because having the flag and template together at the top squeezes the text of the first paragraph. Moving the template down allows us to have a wider view of the text and a larger flag image. Articles that are not in a series should not be formatted as such. --Jiang 17:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Fascism

On Talk:List of fascist movements by country, Bobbybuilder wrote: KMT is not socialist (sic). You also need to study more about Confucian values. Bobbybuilder 12:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I argue that the KMT fulfills all six of these criteria. In detail:

Exaltation of the nation and engaging in severe economic and social regimentation are fulfilled as a consequence of the KMT's Qin dynasty-inherited philosophy regarding social order. This philosophy is closely allied with Confucianism; I note, however, that in Romanian fascism, Clerical fascism, and (admittedly still ill-defined) Japanese fascism, the national religion was used to justify or reinforce the social order of the regime.

Loyalty to a single leader is fulfilled by the extant cult of personality around Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo, although admittedly this exaltation is nowhere near so great as existed for other fascist leaders or around Mao Zedong.

Violent suppression of political opposition and censorship are self-evident in the White Terror and in the KMT's conduct during the first decades of rule on Taiwan. While the KMT was (and technically still is) fighting a civil war, so too was the Falange.

Implementing totalitarian systems is self-evident.

Engaging in syndicalist corporatism is the most difficult claim to prove in any case. The government-guided capitalist development described in History of the Republic of China and East Asian Tigers: Taiwan describe corporatism in its general structure, with a syndicalist element apparent in the redistribution of land the KMT engaged.

From the above I conclude that the Kuomintang does fulfill the criteria for being a fascist organization as outlined, during the first twenty or so years of the ROC on Taiwan. Furthermore, I point out that the KMT's entry on List of fascist movements by country specifically points out the faction of Wang Jingwei, who "organized some right-wing groups under European fascist lines inside KMT" and who was sufficiently compatible with Japanese rule that he was selected as a puppet leader. Therefore, at least some elements within the KMT qualify as a fascist organization during the 1930s and 1940s.

I have replaced the {{WikiProject Fascism}} tag but welcome further debate. Stlemur 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not put in the tag for it, nor would I have done it myself in the first place; however, while it is true that KMT is not fascist, it was arguably fascist decades ago, which may make it fair game for that project. Thoughts? --Nlu 15:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Some googling finds a few papers ([1], [2], [3]) which describe the Taiwan economic model as "authoritarian corporatism". Stlemur 15:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

However, I don't think this shows that KMT was engaging in syndicate corporalism (as one of the criterion that the project uses for fascism); it was merely the opinion of the authors of those particular papers. In particular, the economy of the territory under KMT rule (whether in mainland or Taiwan) was never anywhere as closely a controlled economy as was under any regime that was clearly fascist. Further, while not one of the criteria listed by the project, the common perception of what fascism is requires not only nationalism but a form of nationalism that extols the supremacy of the nationality involved. That loosely fits with KMT's propaganda, but is inconsistent with KMT's own actual policies and behavior. My feeling is that KMT doesn't quite fit, although I acknowledge that it arguably does. (Obviously, in this comment, as I've qualified before, I am referring to the historical KMT, not the current KMT.) --Nlu 16:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply because KMT opposes Communism does not make it fascist; Wikipedia is not the mouth organ to disseminate CCP propaganda. nobs 17:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you are still arguing this subject, it is extremely unfair to put a tag here. I do hope that you can recognise the fact that lots of governments after the WWII interfere with the businesses. KMT's totaliterian is not worse than the Republican Party in the states, I don't see you put a tag on the Republican Party saying it is fascist, so you cannot say that's "self-evident". Same thing applies to the accusation of "white terror". It is not as horrible as the Republican Party during the cold war, and I don't see you having any problem with the Republican Party.

KMT broke the social order from the Qin Dynasty, simple as that. Do you really know what's the social order of the Qin Dynasty anyway? KMT allows ordinary people to join the government, let ordinary people do whatever job they wish as long as they pass the required exams. If that makes KMT follow the social order of the Qin Dynasty, then the entire world is pretty much following that social order.

Confucianism is a philosophy. KMT does not encourage to practice Confucianism (e.g. extravagant funeral or marriage ceremony etc), it only agrees with its beliefs, like most Chinese are. I don't see what's wrong with Confucian teaching people to respect the elderlies, to study hard etc. Besides, Chiangs is Christian. The national religion in China should be Buddhism. In the religious aspect, There's never a fascist leader promote a religion which he/she does not practice and is not popular already. So that makes your first argument invalid.

Since this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, I do hope that you leave your own intepretation to yourself, and let other people report the facts. Bobbybuilder 22:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

In the case of KMT rule in Taiwan, we have Chiang ruling as a dictator for several decades. Without getting into a debate of what's "worse", in a discussion on fascism the question is not whether the government is involved in the economy but in what manner. Based on the articles and external sources cited above, the KMT's economic program was centrally-planned and corporatist. As far as totalitarianism goes, furthermore, the KMT did strongly regulate free speech and political opposition and engaged in political terror -- the White Terror cited in this article. This is not an "accusation"; this is established, documented fact admitted by the KMT itself involving the politically-motivated deaths of thousands. Therefore, I argue that the labels "authoritarian" and "corporatist" are well-founded.

The question of whether Confucianism is philosophy or religion is debatable (see also Religion in China). The question itself, however, is not entirely germane; social regimentation is an established criterion for fascism, and we seem to agree that many Chinese governments have used the Confucian tradition as a means of maintaining social regimentation. As for the statement that no fascist leader promoted a religion other than his own, that is something I will have to look into; I don't see that it's necessarily relevant.

I point out that I am not attempting to establish new research in labeling the KMT a fascist movement; having accepted criteria for the debate, we are all just trying to see whether the facts as they are known meet the criteria we have established, and establish consensus thereon.

Finally, I'm interested to know: in light of the above, which criteria for fascism does the KMT in the period of interest not fulfill, in your understanding? Stlemur 00:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent for continuity) The only "link to facsim" is Communist's calling anyone who opposed them "fascists". nobs 00:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether Confucianism is philosophy or religion is one matter. Whether someone who never learned about Confucianism can debate on this issue is a totally different one. I can only see a frustrated commmunist trying to smear every political partie who was against communism during the WWII as "facsist". I can also see a spinless communist who does not dare to challenge the Americans and come here abusing other nations' political parties.

I challenged your view on the social regimentation. You have not answered my question about what exactly do you know about the social order in Qin Dynasty. Bobbybuilder 01:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about Qing social order, beyond that it differed from other dynasties in that a non-Han monarchy imposed cultural rules on the Han majority as a means of effecting obedience, and that change in Qing society was actively resisted, even to the point of halting the development of new art and science throughout China; but that these, combined with the effects of colonialism, contributed to latent nationalism which culminated in the founding of the Republic of China. If you mean to say by that question that the KMT, rather than imposing a strongly regimented social order, reinforced a preexisting one, I'm inclined to disagree; whether or not the KMT was a fascist movement (and I've never argued that it is an entirely fascist movement, just at certain times in its long history), the structure of Chinese society did change quickly and fundamentally between, say, 1900 and 1930, particularly in a massive expansion and politicization of the elite.

I am still interested in knowing which of the above-outlined criteria you feel the KMT doesn't fulfill. I also notice that on your talk page, you assert that the Democratic Progressive Party is a fascist organization (although no consensus seems to have emerged in the discussion there). Without bringing too much of that discussion here, do you think the DPP should be included as part of this project? Stlemur 02:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you couldn't even tell the difference between Qing and Qin Dynasty, and you want to argue about Chinese history? Colonialism has nothing to do with the foundation of KMT. Colonialism induced nationalism in the late Qing Dynasty, and from the Righteous Harmony Society it showed how well that went. The founding of ROC is to form a republic, and to reform the social order. From what you wrote it is obvious you know nothing about the social status in Qing Dynasty.

I told you already, and I am going to repeat it again. Your view on the first requirement is invalid, your view on the 4th and 5th requirements are hypocritical and even untrue. KMT does not even grow from socialism, so it is totally different from fascism.

DPP has a tendency to be fascist, but I have no interest to discuss that with someone who has no knowledge about Chinese/Taiwanese history/politics.

I am also going to ask you again, why didn't you call the Republican Party of the states fascist? You are definitely showing a double standard here. If you post that fascism tag here again I will report you to the administrators and see how other people think of you running around accusing 50 people plus parties fascist a day. Bobbybuilder 10:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I've made a good case for all six of my points, and presented evidence for all of them.

As for the Republican Party, I don't think it's especially relevant to this discussion what my evaluation of them is, but if you insist: the Republicans haven't implemented a truly totalitarian system yet, nor severe social regimentation; and while Bush's economic plan as implemented does arguably have some corporatist aspects, corporatism per se doesn't seem to me to be one of their explicit goals. Again, this really is a discussion for the Talk:Republican Party (United States), not here.

Finally, with respect, please don't remove templates (e.g. {{FascismTalk}} which simply ask a question; it's equivalent to editing discussion out of a talk page. I think this particular discussion has gone as far as it can go with just us two in it; I notice that you've already asked for an advocate with regard to me. So I say we pause here and hold off until we have more evidence and another viewpoint in this. Thoughts? Stlemur 02:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

And I think I've made a good case telling you that your accusations were invalid.

Do you know anything called Mccarthyism? Are you trying to argue that's not totalitarian?

I believe the meaning of having that list is to show which parties really are fascist, not which parties YOU think are fascist. If you cannot face the fact that "white terror" happened in the states under the Republican Party as well, then you are really biased and in no position to judge the KMT. Bobbybuilder 23:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with McCarthyism, and I do argue that it does not meet the defintion of totalitarianism as defined in that article. The details of that argument are out of place here. Furthermore, I point you at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Fascism project, where I have asked users there about the Republican Party's relation to the criteria as outlined.

Finally, as I have asked before, please don't remove the template containing those criteria from the talk page. This particular template contains the definitions core to this discussion, and editing it out removes a valuable part of it. Stlemur 01:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

See WP:POINT please. And other contributors, please don't reply to this discussion.Bobbybuilder 13:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

---

In all this long discussion, it seems no one bothered to ask the KMT itself. Look at the history of the Blue Shirts (surprisingly not mentioned in the article) and you'll find constant references to studying German and Italian fascism. Quite popular in the 1930s. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Kuomintang Assets

Today, yesterday, in recent weeks, there has been heated discussion in Taiwanese politics on the return of KMT assets to the government. Even the pan-blue PFP has threatened at times, when the KMT has been uncooperative, that they would support a bill to force political parties (basically the KMT), to return assets to the government. What assets are they talking about if the KMT is broke? I want to see citations, and since this is such a common topic in Taiwanese politics, I would like to know why people are today still talking about it. Are they all idiots, mate?

The article also mentions the divesture of assets in 2000. But check out this 2002 article: http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501021014-361785,00.html What assets might they be talking about if the KMT is broke? --DownUnder555 04:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

for a long time ROC = KMT. Therefore anything that is state-owned can be regarded as KMT-owned. It's not like as if the KMT stole money from the treasury and sent it to switzerland or something. Thus it's wrong to insinuate that KMT kept money from the government. KMT is (or was) the government. I think this particular characteristic of the KMT, the concept of One Party, One State (dang3guo2) needs to be addressed. BlueShirts 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

see below for comments regarding why both comments above should not be talking about "divesture". i don't know what the hell blueshirts is talking about in terms of taiwan today since there are at least two major parties now. way back, kmt didn't steal money from the gov't; they stole money from the people of taiwan and private enterprise. when they did take money from the gov't and put it in party coffers, it was often in the hands of private officials and was more easily abused. giving it "back" to the gov't means giving it back to the people since the gov't under democracy has the broader mission of serving the whole of taiwan, rather than kmt members/waishangren/dominant officials at the top. anyways let's say that's what the system used to be--it's not what the system is now! so the kmt should give up that shit since now all they do with the money is pay a large number of people to do very little work and end up fierce pan-blue supporters. it's vote buying, the real deal!

It always amazed me when someone claims that the KMT stole money from the people. How exactly? Was the KMT a thief like Ferdinand Marcos of southeast asia? Did the KMT stole all the money and left Taiwan a shitty place to live? Or did they invest in industries and services through lots of government projects, or are you just too young to remember things like six-year/ten-year public construction projects? BlueShirts 02:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"divests" vs "liquidate"

divest is to do something like not invest in anymore, not put your money at risk in a company, or maybe you want to avoid conflict of interest so you put you divest your holdings before becoming CEO of a competing company. properly what the kmt has done is sell a lot of shit. then they have cash. where the hell is the cash? no one knows. anyways, i do care about where it went, but the idea here is to clear up that they sold stuff, merely liquidating (converting to cash), but not telling anyone what they did with that money. it wasn't just divesting as in getting out of the real estate market.

KMT claims that they have no hidden assets (liquidated or otherwise). You can choose to believe or not believe it, but if you're going to write about it, you have to maintain NPOV. --Nlu 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

POVs does not against WP policy. However unreferencce and only talkiing about POVs from one side should be avoid.

Xplorer 05:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

removed until reference is allocated, we are NOT writing fictions or merely a hear-said report. (Everyone is welcome to add to this section)

The KMT in Taiwan became the world's richest political party, with assets once valued to be around US$ 2.6-10 billion. These assets have begun to be liquidated since 2000.,Its wealth in the year 2000 was at an estimated US $6.5 billion, making it the richest political party in the world. 2 things. First the value "US$ in billion", second "world's richest political party". Please come up with citations. Xplorer 21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

just google "richest political party", see [4]--Jiang 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I read the article, it says the richest party in Asia...NOT the world.

It only say the asset is estimated to be over US 2 billion.Xplorer 03:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to search for this as I suggested, see [5] [6] [7] [8]--Jiang 03:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think only the Economist and Times Asia magzines are more realiable. But one says "the world" and one says "Asia". So I would put a more moderate comment, such as "one of the richest party in the world" This etaiwannews is an government newspaper, which is not neutral itself in anytime of history.

Xplorer 04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The economist article was published in 2004. Time Asia was published in 2000. The figure we are citing is "as of 2000". "the richest party in the world" is indeed correct--Jiang 04:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

here's evidence of the $10 billion upper limit (actually more than $10 billion). [9] Taiwan News is not run by the government, though it is pro-Green. --Jiang 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I really need to point out that none of the above references talks about how they estimated and where the data was obtained from. None of them has shown reference in itself. Since you show lots of discussions in those magzines and newspaper, I think we should write "KMT was frequenctly accussed as the world's richest political party."

Just some recoomendations on your scientific research and technical writing skills. When reseaching, please do not take whatever that are in your readings as true unless solid reference is provided. Please explicitly mention the references, including the detail information, when you write/edit/review any article, intead of hiding them in your writing. When writing, please DO NOT make any assumption about the readers' background. They might not as familiar as you do about the issue in the article. Also expecting the readers to "GOOGLE" is not a proper attitude when writing a formal article. Each article should be self-sustained.

I think you know and read alot, so you should develope the wisdom to improve this article rather then merely replying in discussion board. Let's see some improvements in this article. --Xplorer 19:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel it is rather misleading to say that the KMT is one of the richest party in the world. Perhaps we should expand a little on how the KMT got its wealth. The current form of the article gives the impression that the KMT is a party that pillaged the people and became rich through corruption. However, the article totally misses the point that the KMT was practically the state since it followed Sun Yat-sen's idea of a party-state system. The article also fails to mention the efforts of the KMT that transformed Taiwan into an economic powerhouse. Since vital industries were state-owned, it therefore makes sense that the KMT is a rich party and the biggest employer. The article gives no reference to the economic policies that made Taiwan (and the KMT) rich, such as the Ten Big National Development (rough translation), the Six-Year Plan, the construction of the North-South highway and so forth. In its current form, the article lacks a lot on what the KMT actually did, and has too much emphasis on the development over the past two years. BlueShirts 21:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Each political party and people in history has "good" and "bad". This article is too biased and does not expressed in a neutral tone. Please be professional too. Keep in mind that the readers might not tune-in as some of the editors of this paper. So whenever there is a claim in the article, a reference should be provided. You definely does not want the readers to "GOOGLE" for checking what's said in this article.

---

Xplorer

No way you can think KMT is the richest unless you think Taiwan has more asset then all of China? Considering CCP owns all of China, where personal property is still questionable, I don't think there's another political party's assets that even come close to CCP's assets.

Actually I have no problem with the statement about KMT being the richest. Only the implications that KMT's assets are ill gained which I think is too misleading. Taiwan enjoyed decades of economic prosperity, could it be thatt KMT had managed its assets well during those years? --NYC 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Look around the world and put that into perspective. Many parties including the U.S. have millions of dollars. Those U.S. values can be found publically. Few if any political party remain without corruption. Look at the military rulers, such as in Burma/Myanmar. They live rich in mansions while the people live in poverty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoonpost (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag is removed and back

The flag shown here is not the flag of KMT. The flag's file name is shown as Naval Jack of the Republic of China. Xplorer 21:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

they are identical--Jiang 03:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, they are not... the party's flag has the ray from the sun cover to the end of the blue sky....Xplorer 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

no it doesnt. read the article--Jiang 03:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I will read further, thanx.--Xplorer 04:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please FOCUS

I think the article should be more focus on the following issues.

1. 1 History
2. 2 Policies
3. 3 Structure

Also This article should not be about the "PEOPLE" in KMT or what's happening in news. The current issue should appear in Wipi News section. Xplorer 06:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Cite the Reference and Don't let the readers to "GOOGLE"

For all the claims in article, please give ciations/references. Please don't let the readers to "GOOGLE" for checking if the article is correct.

Just some recoomendations on scientific research and technical writing skills. When reseaching, please do not take whatever that are in your readings as true unless solid reference is provided. Please explicitly mention the references, including the detail information, when you write/edit/review any article, intead of hiding them in your writing. When writing, please DO NOT make any assumption about the readers' background. They might not as familiar as you do about the issue in the article. Also expecting the readers to "GOOGLE" is not a proper attitude when writing a formal article. Each article should be self-sustained.

--Xplorer 19:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that everything should be well referenced, from authoritative sources. My response earlier was because you were deleting valid information on sight where if you had tried verifying the information yourself you would have found that outright deletion was not the optimal solution. Deleting text should be held to same standards as adding text - to do either one should be sure that the facts are right (with references as necessary). Being bold is good, but there is such thing as being too bold. My apologies if I sounded rude.--Jiang 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unverified claims should not even appear in the articles. My intention was to keep the sentences in the discussion area until someone (even myself) allocate the references. Sorry if that's not what you understood. Just you seem to know where they are by heart, you could just DIY. Hey!! just found out you are reconstructing the article toward a better one too. Now we are talking. Keep going.

--Xplorer 07:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We should have a Major Re-construction

I think we should talk contribution of KMT to Taiwan. It is hard for any reader to believe that a party that is as shit as this article talks about can still holding half seats in the Parliment and won the municiple election in 2005. Something like "375 rent reduction for farmers" etc should be worth mentioning. Also the party's central idealogy should also be covered in greater details. --Xplorer 06:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. There wer so many economic plans that the KMT enacted in Taiwan and it's egregious that none was mentioned. Six year plan, ten big reconstruction, Sinchu Science Park, "farmers should own the farm", all these things came to mind. BlueShirts 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this page promoting a personality cult?

I've checked this article against the articles about the other political parties in Taiwan. The other articles DO NOT have pictures of party chairmen posted. I suggest that we do the same here; otherwise, people may think that this article is promoting a personality cult. Not even the Communist Party of China page has a picture of its chairman. Allentchang 13:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe move the picture to the bottom (current KMT) would suffice. I agree, I don't think putting Ma's picture right next to the emblem is appropriate. BlueShirts 20:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ive restored the infobox to something that is standard on en. What is standard on zh is not standard on en.--Jiang 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry I just got the templete from the Chineses version and translated the content. Just trying to put the party seal and flag together. hmm your comment on Communist Party of China seems to have placed them on the bottom of the human existence. Xplorer 00:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions and proposing rules on improving

I think we can phase some sentences that require reference here without removing them from the article. This way no one get offened. Whenever someone allocates the reference,instead of replying in this discussion board, just add the reference in the article itself. So the discussion board is not crowed and message and lost focus. --Xplorer 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say some general things probably don't need reference, as we're not trying to make this an FA article as of now. But some extraordinary claims (like assets) definitely need references. BlueShirts 02:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's my goal is to make all the articles FA. :) Xplorer 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuomintang Changed Headquarters?

Is it true that the Kuomintang has changed its headquarters from in front of the Presidential building to somewhere else? can someone find out? (Chiang Kai-shek 05:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

According to The Taipei Times[10][11], the party sold its headquarters opposite the Presidential Office Building on Zhongshan South Road to the Evergreen Corp for NT$2.3 billion (US$70 million) in March and moved to the current site on Bade Road in June 2006. The new premises' annual maintenance fees of NT$8 million are one-fifth of the maintenance fees at the old residence (NT$40 million).

During the long period in which the party governed Taiwan, the headquarters once housed around 4,000 party workers. After the KMT lost power in 2000, the party began to downsize. There will only be about 120 party workers left when the KMT moves to its new building on Bade Road. Xihe 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

no mention of KMT democide

One thing not mentioned in the article is that the KMT, in both China and Taiwan, were one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century. Professor R.J. Rummel, an expert on democides claims they are responsible for 10 million non-military exterminations. Although this pales compared to the Chinese Communists (76 million killed), they are still the fifth worst regime of the bloody 20th century (in the unpleasant company of Communist China, Soviet Russia, European Colonialism, and Nazi Germany). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.166.26 (talk • contribs)

76 million is a contestable figure, and I would be inclined to agree, but then there is much debate on how much can actually be attributed to Chiang and how much is actually a fact of factionalism and warlordism (after all, can Chiang - though with his Blueshirts and whatnot - do anything to stop the warlord who happens to execute his own dissidents for fun?) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless there are POV problems. For instance, the 228 Incident is glossed over as thus, "The uprising turned bloody and was shortly put down by the ROC Army in the 228 Incident." even though it was KMT police that opened fire on unarmed crowds. The subsequent slaughter is also glossed over. Compared with the articles on Communist China, or Soviet Russia, heck even Nazi Germany, its very very toned down as if nothing happened. It was more than just political repression. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The 228 Incident is covered in detail in its own article. There is no need to cover it in detail here. If you think that the current wording is improper, propose a modification, but keep WP:NPOV in mind. --Nlu (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Strawman as no one is saying in fine detail. Everyone is saying that glossing it over in one sentence is absurd. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

NluNlu, glossing over the 228 incident, something that has been a large issue in Taiwan society, in just 1 sentence is a bit under-serving. Considering the 228 Incident has quite a lot of information, I think devoting a paragraph or two to what Professor R.J. Rummel calls one of the most bloodiest regimes is not too much. So far the arguments have just been side-tracking from the main issue. The fact of the matter is that the KMT is one of the bloodiest regimes, and we should not gloss it over with just 2 sentences. Its not encyclopedic of Wikipedia to have "censorship by comfortable naivety". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.80.232 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

KMT factionalism

Something that should be mention is that the Kuomintang is a rather large label for a variety of factions which were nominally part of the same group, but after all, the CPC, Wang Jingwei and Chiang all broke off from each other and still called themselves "Kuomintang", and then there are warlords who supposedly were part of something called Kuomintang, but a distinction should be made between the label and the actual core of the party that was administrated by Chiang (and then his successors in Taiwan). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this info definitely can go into and greatly expand the history section. I'm very interested in the CC group, western hills, whampoa, political science and other factions. I think factionalism has greatly disappeared on taiwan, unless you count lee teng-hui and his followers, who were expelled or just left. BlueShirts 22:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Loss of Assets

In the Taipei Times and China Post (english language papers in Taipei) earlier this week (24 Aug 06), there were articles about how the KMT has lost a lot of its financial assets and sold off more tangible assets after a disastrous showing during the 1997-8 Asian Financial Crisis. I don't have time to add this, but I think it's an important part of the story of the modern KMT. Aep 04:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed the phrase "literally the National People's Party of China" from the etymology because I believe that the standard translation of 国民 into English is nation, and therefore Nationalist Party of China is already a literal translation. --Pekinensis 17:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although "Chinese Nationalist Party" has been the consistant translation for Kuomintang, arguably, it could also be translated as the "Chinese Republican Party," or perhaps "Chinee Citizens' Party". Since the Chinese word "Kuomin (國民)" literally means "citizens." Whereas if the order of the characters are reversed, Minguó(民国), it means "repulic", as used in the name of both the People's Republic of China, as well as the Republic of China. Nowhere in the Chinese name does it overtely denote the philosophy of nationalism, even though it was a popular concept during the turn of the 20th century as former colonies of European overseas empires struggled to gain independence. The usage of the term "nationalism" in association with Kuomintang should be a misnomer, since the creation of the Chinese republic should be seen more as a transition from absolutist empirial rule to a people-oriented repulican government, without involving change of borders nor the composition of the people. Since KMT has a very conservative outlook, opposite its main rival the DPP, its name should really be translated to "Chinese Republican Party", or ever simply the "Republican Party". This makes KMT ehoe the American Republican Party as the main conservative voice of the national government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodecahedron45 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that there are multiple ways of speeling it, and the page needs to be cleaned up. I have taken a semesterlong class on the history of China, and it can be seen as being spelled "Guomingdang" and multiple others. Can someone insert links to this page for spelling "errors" or at least list the different spellings. --Morris 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually in many countries a “Republican” political party might have very radical policies. “Republican” and “Democratic” in the names of the two main US parties are just names. Why should the KMT be translated according to current American political party naming conventions? Anyway, wiki is not a place for original research. "Guomingdang" is just the pinyin romanization (without tones) of 国民党. LDHan 06:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist Party of China vs Kuomintang

the article currently presents "Nationalist Party of China" as the official name and the Kuomintang as the common name. Not true: see Introduction to the Party - Kuomintang Official Website. It's just called the Kuomintang. The "Nationalist Party of China" is a common but inapt translation. Editing lead accordingly. --Sumple (Talk) 11:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue has been resolved. In the official website: www.kmt.org.tw, the Kuomintang of China is the best possible English translation. The kuomintang was only firmly established official party name after the civil war. Back then it was known as something along the lines of the nationalist revolutionary party

--Zhongxin 02:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Centre right?

Is there a cite for the KMT being "centre right"? It was certainly a socialist party under Sun Yat-sen, but probably not under Chiang Kai-shek. In many of its policies it seems much more "left" than the DPP. --Sumple (Talk) 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's right only in the sense that it's "anti-communist." Everything it's done on Taiwan is really leftist, like breaking up land and distribute it to people who actually farmed the land. Blueshirts 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But they also murdered and executed a lot of far leftists as well so not quite. Also, the breaking up of the land and distributing it often fell into the coffers of the KMT officials themselves. Come on, please mention the whole truth here. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't say "murdered" and "executed". You think KMT opponents were the only ones who got it bad? It was martial law, it applied to everyone. Tell you the truth, the government officials themselves had more to be scared of then the typical urban citizen. After 1949, Chiang purged the government. Any government official found guilty of corruption were either exiled, jailed, or executed. The same applied throughout the later years until the lifting of maritial law. You think KMT officials got it good? You're wrong. The KMT officials had more to fear for post-1949 then the regular urban folks did. Farmers and anyone else living outside the urban areas were least effected by the Maritial Law. And you weren't prosecuted because you were an enemy of the KMT, you were prosecuted because you broke the law. And the breaking of the land part, the land was distributed to the farmers, not officials. The officials had no use of the land, they were soldiers and statesmen, they lived in the city or military camps (with an exception of Chiang, but different story). You're going to have to read about the 332 deal to know exactly how they "distributed the land" and how KMT got so rich. It wasn't because they took all the money themselves, Taiwan at the time had NO MONEY, it was even more poor than mainland. When the central government retreated to Taiwan in 1949, you think everyone came to Taiwan? No, everyone who was rich and had money went to Hong Kong. Why? Because Taiwan had nothing, it was just a slab of rock about to be taken over by the PRC to them. The 2 mil who went to Taiwan were just regular middle-class peasants, soldiers, and some government officials. Liu Tao (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

KMT supports economical development and it helps local businesses, that is leaning towards right. DPP also claims to be "anti-communist" now, yet it is repeating what the Chinese Communist Party was doing during the 60s. Machie 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do people still think KMT is "anti-communist"? Their stand on communist party is very soft. They against "direct" presidential election -> left (communist). However, politics in Taiwan is so different to the rest of the worlds, left-right specturm is meanless really. I think Wiki should remove left-right spectrum from KMT and DPP, as well as removing "anti-communist" from KMT. BW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.38.223 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to direct presidential elections in itself has nothing to do with communism Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the description of the KMT as right-wing either. First of all it certainly began as a left-wing socialist party under Sun. And Chiang was fairly left-wing, he was only conservative in the sense that he was anti-communist, he still would have been a leftist relative to western democratic countries such as France and the United States and he favored socialist economic policies and redistribution of wealth. And there's also the fact that the KMT and it's allies in the Blue Coalition are currently the ones who are lenient towards Communist China, whereas the Green Coalition takes a hard-line stance against communism. --198.51.130.34 (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because the KMT and Pan-Blue's stance are like in the centre of the Pan-Green and Communists. The goal of the DPP is not to "fight communism", their goal is to create a "Republic of Taiwan". The Pan-Blue, in the traditional sense has their goals of re-uniting China, preferably under the flag of the "Republic of China", but in the current situation only strive to maintain the status quo. The Blues in this sense would be right due to their conservativeness. You have to view their "rights" and "lefts" in relative to the current situation they're in, not based upon western nations and politics. Conservatism in one area can be totally different then in other areas. Liu Tao (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed both "conservatism" and "centre-right" as ideologies due to the questions raised here, the lack of clear understanding of what "centre-right" and "conservatism" mean in the context of Taiwan and China, and the lack of reliable sources. I believe the more specific terms like "anti-communist" and "Chinese nationalism" are a much better way to state the ideology than trying to impose labels developed for groups of beliefs in western politics. Readin (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

KMT is "conservative" in terms of trying to keep the original status quo of the ROC. Liu Tao (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The KMT has a Chinese nationalist position of pushing for an eventual annexation of Taiwan by China. Both the DPP and KMT look for short term status quo maintenance, while they both seek long term change - but in different directions. Readin (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was the original and traditional position. If you watch the news lately for the past years, you'd have noticed that they barely touch upon the position of reunification. Yes, their traditional stance is reunification, but for the past several years, they've been falling into a centre-right position of just maintaining the current status-quo and not going as far as preaching for re-unification. The DPP on the other hand is always trying to aim for "Taiwanaisation", you can tell by their past actions. The KMT is trying to preserve or put things back the way they were, or at the current time try to keep things they way it is, which is conservatism whilst the DPP is trying to change things to something entirely different, which would be liberalism. As for left-right, that's not conservo-liberal. Here's the quote directly from the left-right politics page:

"The terms left and right are often used to spin a particular point of view, rather than as simple descriptors. In modern political rhetoric, those on the Left typically emphasize their support of working people and accuse the Right of supporting the interests of the upper class, whereas those on the Right usually emphasize their support of individualism and accuse the Left of supporting collectivism. Thus, arguments about the way the words should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what left and right mean."

In this case, the KMT is somewhat in the middle. They kind of support both sides of the case but fall a bit towards the right. Liu Tao (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're getting into OR, POV, and speculation. Articles on political parties are problematic that way, because the parties speak with many voices and often spin their positions toward what is popular without necessarily changing the positions.

When the KMT first came to Taiwan, they immediately began changing things to make Taiwan Chinese and to remove Japanese influences. They redistributed land and made other economic changes. Recently, they have been working hard to change things from the way President Chen left them. These hardly seem "conservative" under the definition of "maintaining the current status quo". Further, they have been seeking to radically alter Taiwan's relationship with China. Again, this is hardly "maintaining the current status-quo".

As for "centre-right", you have rolled out a definition of what it should be, but haven't provided any justification for saying it fits the KMT.

Rather than argue these, find some sources. I would be interested to know if "right" and "left" have any real meaning in the context of Taiwanese politics and if so, what they are, and then which party fits which. But I want it from a reliable source, not from the speculation of an editor of Wikipedia.

Similarly, I would be curious to know if there are accepted definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" in the context of Taiwanese politics and how the terms are used. But again, it should be from a reliable source. Readin (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, get this straight, the KMT is a party not of Taiwan, it is a party of the entire ROC as a whole. Yes, initially speaking they weren't exactly "conservatives", but after the change in society... never mind about it. You wanna remove it, go ahead, it matters little anyways. Just remember to do the same for DPP. Liu Tao (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Major official policy shift?

I thought this might be of interest.... there are rumblings going through the media that the KMT is changing it's party charter, among other things, eliminating the unification clause. The official title "中國國民黨" remains unchanged, however the following changes have been made (taken from China Times article):

• 首次將「台灣」寫入黨章 (Formal inclusion of "Taiwan" in the party charter.)
• 宣示將「以台灣為主，對人民有利」作為黨的信念 (Declaration of new party aim of "Focus on Taiwan, for the benefit of the people")
• 在黨員目標條次中刪除「統一」字眼，改以「和平發展」代替 (Replacement of "unify" in the party charter with "peaceful development")
• 預定將於六月二十四日舉行的第十七屆第二次全國黨代表大會通過 (Expected to be passed during conference on 24 June)
• 將通過前主席馬英九為總統參選人，並修正「排黑條款」、為馬特別費官司解套 (Will also nominate Ma Ying-Jiou as presidential candidate, and amend anti-corruption articles in response to Ma's ongoing court case)
• 此外包括黨務組織、黨員權益等也大幅調整 (Also includes changes in party organization, party member rights)

It's still a developing story but seems to be big on most local news sites, sources: China Times (Chinese) TVBS (Chinese) YamNews (aggregator) ICRT (English). No official press release from the KMT so far [12] -Loren 05:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more like changing the party charter to reflect reality rather than a real policy shift. Blueshirts 05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but in a situation where so much rests on what exists on paper... this certainly isn't a small thing. -Loren 06:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit about it in the Taipei Times too. Sounds a lot like the philosophy that Chiang Ching-kuo and Lee Teng-hui believed.

Voicing his support for the revision, Taoyuan County Commissioner Chu Li-lun (朱立倫) urged the public not to judge the issue based on ideology, and disagreed that the changes would cost the KMT votes from deep-blue supporters. "The KMT is developing in Taiwan, and it should identify with this island and work with the people," he said. Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) called the decision to add Taiwan in the revision "pragmatic" and "rational," adding that such a move should be encouraged. --Folic Acid 03:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not a policy shift at all. The Kuomintang will never change its name. It will always be known as the honorable party that founded the REPUBLIC OF CHINA (中華民國) TingMing 00:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They didn't talk about changing the name. Blueshirts 05:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldest political party ?

How can a party established in 1912 be called the "oldest political party in Asia" ? Even the Indian National Congress was established in 1885. Moreover Kuomintang article belongs to category "Category:Political parties established in 1894"! So when was Kuomintang actually established ? Jay 10:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

it came from the Revive China Society, established in 1894. Blueshirts 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

organisation section needs to be expanded

The current organisation section is just a list. It should be expanded in a paragraph or two to explain who was and is the ultimate head of the party. Seems like in the early days, the most powerful position was the Director General and the Chairman.

But the party and the RoC were one identity in the pre PRC days. So there could be some blurring between the party and the central government.

The last person to hold the DG position was the Chiangs. Nowadays, the most powerful position is the Chairmanship. This should be stated that it is equivalent to President or Secretary General in other political parties. --Zhongxin 01:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Title of this article

Should this article not be Guomindang??? From what I've been told, Wade Giles is just what westerners reckoned they heard when they rocked up. IMHO we should be using Pinyin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.251.108 (talk • contribs)

you use what's the most common. That's also why we use Sun Yat-sen, and not Sun Zhongshan. Blueshirts 03:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen isn't the same, in Chinese, as Sun Zhongshan. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen is Cantonese. Sun Zhongshan is Mandarin. Because he is most commonly known by his cantonese name in the Foreign world, Sun Yat-sen is used. Also, about the "Guomindang" part, wales-giles is what has been used in the RoC until very recently when they changed to tonyong pinyin. People are used to seeing "Kuomintang" instead of "Guomindang". Also, it's the KMT's choice whether or not to change their english name from KMT to GMD. It's like a lot of shops and other places in Beijing too. Instead of useing "Beijing" in thier English names, they use "Peking". "Kuomingdang" is used because the KMT is officially known as "Kuomingdang". We use what is official. Liu Tao (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Please see Sun Yat-sen and note that the second (Yat vs. Zhong) and third (-sen vs. shan) are not the same. Not sure if this will work, but here are the characters: Sun Yat-sen: 孫逸仙 Sun Zhongshan: 孫中山. If that worked, even someone illiterate in Chinese would notice the difference between the characters. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is correct. Yixian(or Yat-sen in Catonese) is Sun Zhongshan's "號". Just in case you didn't know, Sun Zhongshan had multiple different names for different usages like many Chinese scholars at that time. If you by chance don't know what "號" is, it is something like an alternate name that many Chinese officials and scholars have. The English Translation is "Pseudonyms". He has multiple other names too, just go to Names of Sun Yat-sen. Liu Tao (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt the article acknowledge at the top that Guomindang (and GMD) is an accepted and often used spelling? Many other china-related articles provide both Wade-Giles and Pinyin in the lead paragraph when both are commonly encountered in English. See Qing Dynasty or Mao Zedong. Jieagles (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The pinyin spelling is almost never used in English as a name - however it is a common transliteration of the Chinese name. Which is why the pinyin is included in the namebox. I think that's sufficient. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

a quick search in google books turns up 1100 books in which "Guomindang" is used and a quick scan indicates that it is almost always being used as a name and its even in the titles of some books. Even a normal google search turns up plenty of instances where "Guomindang" is used as the primary name of the party. Also, at least for my browser the transliterations section of the name box is hidden and has to be opened by the user. i think this information needs to be more readily accessible. Jieagles (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Google: 726,000 hits for Kuomintang alone without Guomindang (thus excluding things like Wikipedia), 103,000 for Guomindang alone without Kuomintang. Not commetning - just recording the statistics. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kuomintag" is the spelling the party uses for itself. Readin (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. "Kuomintang" is clearly the most-used and most-recognized english spelling and the article name should certainly not change. I simply think the Google numbers as well as my (admittedly limited) experience illustrate that "Guomindang," as it is likely to be encountered without Kuomintang, merits a more prominent place comparable to "Mao Tse-tung" or "Ch'ing" as noted above. Jieagles (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Jieagles in this instance. Kuomintang is by far the most recognised translation, and is in fact the official English name, and I have no idea why anyone wants to use anything different in English. However, there is a trend among some academic circles to ruthlessly use Pinyin for any kind of transliteration, even when it is inappropriate, as with the Kuomintang.

Inappropriate it may be (or at least, I think it is), but it is by no means a negligible minority usage. I think "Guomindang" should be more prominently displayed. One option might just be to make sure that the pinyin transliteration is switched "on" by default in the namebox. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think GMD should link directly to this page, as it is often used instead of Kuomintang and is short for Guomindang.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Guomindang (GMD) should be acknowledged as an alternate spelling. Despite comments otherwise, Guomindang is widely used as the name of the entity (at least in recent scholarship on Chinese history written in English). Additionally, even with the Wade-Giles spelling, the pronunciation more closely resembles the Hanyu Pinyin spelling, not the Wade-Giles. In Wade-Giles, if it were meant to be pronounced in that way, it would be written "K'uo min t'ang", as in the Kangxi Emperor, "K'ang Hsi" in Wade-Giles, or the Tang Dynasty, "T'ang" in Wade-Giles. Finally, Wikipedia reveals elsewhere that as of 2009, the ROC will begin using Hanyu Pinyin. Joe0622 (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In Russia Guomingdang is only known as Гоминьдан (Gomin'dan), which is most of the time referred to the cyrillisation of Guomingdang. The article should have both. --Anatoli (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Socialist International

Can someone please enlighten me on the content on the opening paragraph? "A member of International Democratic Union rather than a member of Socialist International". Given this pary's ideologies tending towards the right, I would have thought that Soc.Int would be inappropriate, since its parties include the Greek PASOK and the French Socialists and the British Labour Party etc. Evlekis (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the editor who originally added the reference thought that the Soc Int was better known, and so associating/contrasting the IDU with the Soc Int helped to place in context the nature of the organisation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

KMT's many policies on Taiwan were pretty "socialist". Blueshirts (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-KMT bias?

I'm on the edge of slapping a pov or bias tag on the article. It reads very pro-KMT. However the bias is very skillful and avoids most of the common obvious problems of biased articles, perhaps because many of those have been fixed already. But some examples remain, and a lot of it is de-emphasizing or just softening of tone for the KMT negatives while highlighting and promoting the positives.

A couple of easy examples are the fact that the 228 massacre is called "disorder and protests" and gets two lines of description, and the white terror gets one line (and is blamed on the the "228 incident".

In the section on the democratization of Taiwan, no mention is made of the role illegal opposition parties and international pressure played, the impression is given that the KMT just decided to do something nice. No mention is made of the role the KMT played in the suppression of Taiwanese nationalism and Taiwanese culture. Readin (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have raised a valid point. Could I suggest that, if you are willing, come up with a few paragraphs that address your concerns here? What I understood of the history (and my experience) was that KMT wasn't certainly just wanted to do something nice during the democratisation of Taiwan. But, I also noted that in my experience no member of the general public in Taiwan has described what happened on 28 February as the "228 massacre". This term is used only in those pan-green media (and normally limited to their political shows with specific audience). "228 incident" or simply "228" is the common term (and the more neutral term) that the general public uses.--Pyl (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. 228 is called an incident because 310 is the date of the actual massacre. Someone should make an article on that too, although its lesser known it doesn't make it less important. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ROC uses separation of powers

The President of the ROC is not a dictator and his party cannot be said to "rule" unless it is able to overcome opposition from other yuans. The Chen administration was able to do very little in large part because his party never had a majority in the Legislative Yuan. It cannot be said that it "ruled" even though it tried. If you're familiar with U.S. politics you'll know it's very similar to they way we only say "Republic rule" or "Democratic rule" when both houses of Congress and the Presidency are held by the same party. We don't give one party or the other credit for "rule" when we have divided government as Taiwan has had for the last 8 years.Readin (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means and purposes the DPP was the ruling party for the last 8 years.[13] Blueshirts (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is British, and they have a paliament. Perhaps that confused them because in a paliamentary system the paliament and prime minister are always from the same party. Regardless, the wording I have provided is more precise in that it says the DPP was specifically in charge of the executive yuan. There is no NPOV reason to switch to a more vague statement. Readin (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's picking bones out of a chicken egg. You can explain the details later, but the significance of the election was that it ended eight years of DPP "rule". Foreign media have used the term, so does Taiwanese media, which have always used the term "執政" to describe Chen's presidency and also "執政黨" to describe his party. Blueshirts (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

China Post is American (or At least North American, given the style of English used by them). It describes the DPP as the ruling party too (Ruling party apologizes for 'diplomatic blunder'). That aside, I don't think the fact that DPP was previously outlawed was relevant to the info that the paragraph is trying to convey.--Pyl (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chiang Ching-kuo.jpg

The image Image:Chiang Ching-kuo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pinyan

I think the title of the article should be changed to Guomindang. The Wade-Giles transliteration is archaic and should adopt the pinyan transliteration instead not only to help readers pronounce the word more easily, but to conform to the modern day academia's attempts to create a universal transliteration of the Chinese language using pinyan.--128.120.161.137 (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is discussed above in the section "Title of this article" and found that "Kuomintang" remains the most common English spelling of the party name. Readin (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

yah its just that for historical reasions we've gotten so used to it.--J intela (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can't change "Kuomintang". "Kuomintang" is the party's official English name. You've to know, the RoC is still using the old Wade-Giles transliteration for stuff that's already transliterated, and it's only recently that they started using the Tongyong pinyin for the newer stuff. You can't just change it to make it more convenient. I personally don't like it, and like Han-Yu pinyin better, but we have to use what ever's the official name. My name on Wiki is Liu Tao, but it is officially Liou Tau. I use "Liu Tao" as a seperate alias and when dealing with non-formal occasions, but in formal and official stuff I have to use Liou Tau. Same with these names, they're officially known by their Wade-Giles or Tongyong transliterations, and that's what we have to stick with. I think it's one of the policies too, I don't remember... Liu Tao (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Economics

OK, Whats this partie's econimic ideoligy?--J intela (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Kuomintang of China"

Is this seriously the party's official name? It just sounds like translationese for "中国国民党" that they happened to put up on their website. Their English header says "Kuomintang Official Website" and omits the term "China" in the translation, while the Chinese text reads 中国国民党全球资讯网", i.e. including "China". 61.18.170.216 (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is also the name the San Francisco (USA HQs) and Oakland offices use--Jiang (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay if this is actually the case, then all of Liu Tao/my arguing with each other is pointless, but it needs a WP:CITE so that the next guy who comes along and thinks "Kuomintang of China" sounds ridiculous doesn't start having the same argument with you all. 61.18.170.53 (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this page on their website, the "forward" begins with "The Kuomintang of China was founded by Dr. Sun Yat-sen.". nat.utoronto 07:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw that page, but there's no evidence that this is their official name in English, as opposed to a badly-translated phrase (see above) that happens to appear a few times on their website. Whoever wrote that website uses both "Kuomintang" and "Kuomintang of China" in different places on their site, but in the places where you'd expect they'd use their full, official name (e.g. the site headers and banners), you only see "Kuomintang". 61.18.170.107 (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion between Liu Tao and 61.18.170.*

It is their whole name. "Kuomintang" is a transliteration, and it means "Nationalist Party". As one can see, it does not include the "China" part in it, meaning "Kuomintang" is only a short for "Kuomintang of China" or "Chinese Kuomintang". If you want to translate it, it would be "Chinese Nationalist Party" or "Nationalist Party of China". It's the same for the CCP, they can be called "Chinese Communist Party" or "Communist Party of China". Both can be used interchangeably, the CCP just used a translated name while the. You can also take American Party names too. The full name of the Republican party is "Republican Party of the United States", or "United States Republican Party". If you are just saying "Republican Party" when in international terms, it can mean multiple parties, as multiple nations have their own Republican parties. Same goes with place names too. The full name of Baltimore would be "Baltimore, Baltimore County, Maryland, United States". Liu Tao (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Er ...

1. If you want to translate it, it would be "Chinese Nationalist Party" or "Nationalist Party of China" The point being it is NOT translated. The disambiguator is necessary in Chinese, because there are many other zh:國民黨. Similarly, in English, if they were just the Nationalist Party, of course we'd need a disambiguator. But there is nothing else that is called the Kuomintang in English, so the disambiguator is not necessary, and only a naive translator would include it. Similarly, the Madagascar political party "Tambatra" (Union Party) are not referred to as "Tambatra of Madagascar" [14] or "Malagasy Tambatra" [15], for the exact same reason --- it does not matter at all that there are many other Union Parties.
2. The full name of the Republican party is "Republican Party of the United States" incorrect. Non-US newspapers of course refer to them as "the U.S.' Republican Party" in order to distinguish them from local republican parties, but this is not the name they call themselves.
3. "Kuomintang" is only a short for "Kuomintang of China" or "Chinese Kuomintang" "Kuomintang of China" is extremely awkward compared to "Chinese Kuomintang" --- I'm not the only one who thinks this --- "Kuomintang of China" gets only 697 non-wiki GHits [16], vs. thirteen times as many for "Chinese Kuomintang" [17]. Basically the Chinese translationese rule of reversing the order of every noun phrase when you translate it from Chinese to English and putting "of"s in between the constituent parts has produced an extremely grammatically awkward result here. (For another example of this, look at the hits for the similarly awkward "California of America" [18] --- largely, though not exclusively, attributable to Chinese-speakers writing in English).

regards, 61.18.170.53 (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You say "Kuomintang of China" sounds ridiculous. It does not at all. The only reason it sounds "ridiculous" is because it's a mix between transliteration and translation. "Kuomintang" means "Nationalist Party", so "Kuomintang of China" would also mean "Nationalist Party of China". It's the same with "Chinese Kuomintang", it can be instead called "Chinese Nationalist Party". As for the "Republican Party" stuff, it's the same thing. "Republican Party of the United States" and "United States Republican Party" are the same thing. It's just a different ordering of words.

As for the neccessity of the Nation's name, it's only really needed when talking internationally. It's obvious that one does not need the nation's name when talking about the party in the nation, because there's only ONE. Wikipedia is an international source, so the nation's name should be included, or god knows which Republican Party or Nationalist Party you're talking about. The main question here should be if the official English name is "Kuomintang" or "Nationalist Party", not if the "Chinese" part should be in or not. In practice, it does not really matter, since both can be used interchangeably, but I guess here we're looking at the Official name. Liu Tao (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article title should be the common name of the subject, with any necessary parenthetical disambiguator; the first bolded text in the article should be the subject's official name (e.g. Bill Clinton - William Jefferson Clinton). Now look at Republican Party (United States). Their official name is NOT "Republican Party of the United States". It is merely "Republican Party". It does not matter that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia --- the party calls itself by a name which does not have respect for internationalism, so we use a parenthetic disambiguator in the article title to distinguish them from every other Republican Party --- this does NOT imply that their official name is "Republican Party (United States)" or "Republican Party of the United States", a phrase you will not find on the RNC's official website. The title of this article, Kuomintang is fine, as you can see from books that this is more common than the translated version. But the question remaings of whether Kuomintang or Kuomintang of China is the official name.

And finally, when you reply to my comments, could you please stop inserting your reply in between someone else's comment and my reply to someone else's comment, it makes the discussion very hard to read. I've split our arguing off into a separate section so we can focus on the main problem of finding a source that confirms whether the official name is "Kuomintang" or just "Kuomintang of China". 61.18.170.57 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. I guess you're right then, as far as we can tell, the "official" name of the KMT is "Kuomintang", not "Kuomintang of China". I'm thinking that the reason for this is that on the news and stuff, because the KMT is a foreign party, they've to say where it's from so people can know what "Kuomintang" is, in this case, some political party in China. I've nothing further to add, sorry for the trouble and all. By the way, I agree and support you fully on this matter. Liu Tao (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind policies such as WP:RS and naming conventions, two things are fairly clear.

1. The common name of the political party is the Kuomintang. This is well attested in media sources, the party website, everywhere.
2. The official name of the political party is the Kuomintang of China. The evidence for this is the Party Constitution. Article 1, Chapter 1 of the Party Constitution (which is the source cited in this article) clear states "the Kuomintang of China (hereafter "the Party")". The "of China" part is an integral part of the party name, as much as the "of China" part of the Communist Party of China, as much as the "Australian" part of the Australian Labor Party.

First, the official name of something is that which by legal force applies to it. A party is defined by its party constitution. If the constitution defines the party to be called something, then so be it. A Party's Constitution is conclusive on the name of the Party, and it is unacceptable to Wikipedia policy to second guess an authoritative source.

Secondly, the analogy with the American Republican Party is not appropriate. The Kuomintang was founded as a Lennist, centralised party governed by a Constitution - like many modern political parties around the world. The "Republican Party" in the United States, however, is technically a loose confederation of individual parties. Each of these constituent parties have a Constitution, but the GOP itself is defined only by loose "rules". If we take a closer look at the RNC rules, we will see that the Rules refer only to the "Republican Party", which supports the view that its official name is just the "Republican Party". The Kuomintang's Party Constitution, on the other hand, clearly define "the Party" to be "the Kuomintang of China". The contrast, I hope, is clear. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the constitution is written in chinese, and we already agree that the official name of the party is 中國國民黨, therefore the only question is what is the appropriate translation. In my opinion Chinese National Peoples Party is alot closer. The first guo is part of name for China, the second guo basically means it is a national as opposed to regional party. This is in accord with common chinese language usage both then and now. However we cant just throw away nearly 100 years of history and just give this party a new name, therefore we must stick to common english name for it which is Kuomintang. The party members on the other hand are known as the "Nationalists". 58.240.106.194 (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversea branches

There should be a section on oversea branches. I know San Francisco, Sydney, New York all have one, other cities?Arilang1234 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese

'中国国民党' should be removed. Kuomintang never uses Simplified Chinese. KMT is political party of the ROC in Taiwan, no relationship with Mainland China from 1949. Any evidence for Kuomintang indicates their party name in Simplified Chinese? 59.16.120.98 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not be removed. It does not matter it the KMT ever used simplified script or not. Chinese script is Chinese script. Most of the articles in Wikipedia that are about Chinese stuff have their Chinese name stated in both Traditional and Simplified Script. Sure, people in the RoC and Hong Kong write KMT in Traditional Script, but those in Mainland write KMT using simplified script. The point is not whether or not if KMT uses simplified script for their names or not, the point is what is the name in Chinese in BOTH Traditional and Simplified script. Liu Tao (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there: In the party's infobox, only the traditional form, im the linguistics box, both... Liu... If u say that we must keep showing the simplified form in the infobox, then we should add simplified chinese to the ROC infobox... and simplified is not official in the ROC... Read the chinese style manual

BTW.. y do ppl still erase the wiktionary links?Gumuhua (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The manual says to do exactly what I said, except they added which should be listed first depending on the article, in this case traditional should be listed first. We weren't talking about infoboxes either, we were talking about if simplified script should be on there at all. Anyways, that's right, there should be simplified script for ROC's infobox too. No-one took it out, it's that no-one put it in. Liu Tao (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Then lets be coherent... Shoud we add simplified to the ROC country infobox? (simplified is not official there), should we add simplified chinese to the "Red Cross Society of the ROC" NGO infobox? (Not official, again...). DPP political party infobox too? Lets go to every chinese province infobox (not the linguistics one) and add traditional, right?

Still opposing... I state again: the linguistics infobox provides for both traditional and simplified, and it even classifies the language used and the correspondent transliteration, the related infobox states the official name of the organization in the official script appliable...

"Most of the articles in Wikipedia that are about Chinese stuff have their Chinese name stated in both Traditional and Simplified Script" AGREE, but INSIDE the linguistics infobox, not the POLITICAL, MEDIA or whatever kind of infobox

Gumuhua (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting a bit confused here. I thought the infoboxes ARE liguistics infoboxes? Liu Tao (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there quite an ample variety of infoboxes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Infobox

As far as I know, political infoboxes ask for the name, well, english name and the chinese name written with the appliable script should apply, cause, again, simplified doesn't have legal status in the ROC, but both simplified and traditional have legal status in the PRC (because of Hongkong and Macau). The KMT is, today, a party of the ROC, the closest thing to the KMT u will find in the mainland is the "revolutionary committee of the KMT". Again, I insist: we don`t see simplified in the country infobox of the ROC, but we see both simplified and traditional in the linguistics infobox. If u check the link, u'll see arabic, korean and japanese infoboxes. Cheers. Gumuhua (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wang Ching-wei and Hu Han-min

The pages for these two guys are called Wang Jingwei and Hu Hanmin. If those are the incorrect names, a move should be proposed for the two articles. Whatever decision is made by the editors of those pages should be respected here. Personally I suspect the Wang Ching-wei and Hu Han-min names are correct as these are historical figures unlikely to have used Hanyu Pinyin. But I admit I know little about them. Readin (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

U answered urself... Gumuhua (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Historically they are known as that. Until we know their official names, don't think about changing them to Hanyu. As far as I know, their official romanised names are Wang Ching-wei and Hu Han-min. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reported Eeeeeewtw for vandalism... deleted sourced data...

Well, lets see where all this ends...Gumuhua (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And for readin and liu, well, wiki naming conventions r quite clear about the names of those KMT members:

The encyclopedia should reference the name more familiar to most English readers. For most historical figures this means that the encyclopedia entry should reference the Chinese name (romanized in Hanyu pinyin) rather than the English name

U dont agree? good, go and propose to rename both of those pages... Gumuhua (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Y that adversion to hanyu pinyin?

In most historical cases from that time period, Hanyu Pinyin is not used. For example, "Sun Yat-sen" is not Pinyin nor is "China Kai-shek". Please quote the wiki naming conventions that say we should use the Chinese name rather than the English name? As for proposing the name change on those pages, I'll let Liu Tao handle that. I don't have enough interest in the subject. Readin (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why's it have to be me? Anyways, back to subject. Lad, this is an English encyclopedia, we use English names here, not Chinese. I've told you, commonly I use my name as "Liu Tao", but in fact, my legal name is "Liou Tau". Same concept here, we can mention his name in Hanyu, but the usage of his name should be what's official, or supposedly official, which we don't know yet. Besides, "Chiang Kai-shek" isn't even Mandarin, it's Cantonese (I think it's Cantonese, I'm not sure, but I'm sure that it's not Mandarin). It's the same concept with the place names in the ROC. Although Hanyu as been installed as the official romanisation method, many names, that is, city/town and up, still retains their tonyong and wales-giles names. Kinmen/Quemoy are still used, as is with Taipei, Kaosiung, etc. They have a hanyu version, but their OFFICIAL English names are not their Hanyu romanisations UNTIL they have been officially changed, which they have not. Liu Tao (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your reasoning focusing on English usage (but not on "official" usage - "offical" represents the POV of somee office and we should be NPOV). We need a source to say what their name is though. Readin (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I know, but where in the world am I supposed to find their official usage? You don't expect me to go to the government records and search them up, do you? Or get a hold of their Visas, Passport, or whatever official documents that states their English names. As far as I know, "Chiang Kai-shek" and "Sun Yat-sen" are their official English names. Sun is probably easier to do, since he's been to the United States and Britain, but Chiang will be difficult. I don't know if he ever been to the West. I'll do some research in the meantime and see what I can find. As usual, I'm starting with wikipedia, lol. Liu Tao (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiang and Sun are very well known. Finding lots of English references for their names is not a problem. That's why we don't use Hanyu Pinyin for their names. We use their common well-known English anems. It's the other guys (Wang and Hu) that are the issue. My guess is that you would find their names in places like: old newspapers, ROC and KMT histories, other history books. You might start by plugging their names into a Google search engine and seeing if any reliable sources pop up. For this topic, a Taiwan government source or a KMT source would be considered very reliable. Readin (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kuomintang was fascist, pictures with adolf hitler in germany with them

File:孔祥熙 with adolf hitler.jpg

H. H. Kung, a Kuomintang official, with Adolf Hitler

File:Kuomintang officials with Adolf Hitler.jpg

H. H. Kung, a Kuomintang official, with Adolf Hitler and other Kuomintang officials.

• • Adolf Hitler with Kuomintang officials
  • President of Republic of China (Taiwan) Ma Ying Jeou giving hitler salute

KMT was not fascist. It doesn't mean that if their officials are shown in the same photographs as Hitler mean that they're fascist. Where in the world did you get this logic? Liu Tao (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SA and Hitlerjugend in China

Hitlerjugend in China

why did kuomintang allow the Sturmabteilung (a NAZI paramilitary known for murdering jews and communists) into china, and hitler jugend?

Since Mr. Kung is descended from confucious, he is fascist too.

It's called military training. The relations between the Germans and Chinese were not ideological except for the fact that they both opposed the Communist Soviets.

And you're saying Confucious is fascist?! Okay, this is enough, get out. This both insulting and ignorant. Liu Tao (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You want to argue that Confucious wasn't fascist? Then do so. Telling someone else to "get out" violates wp:goodfaith and wp:civil. I don't think any argument is needed because any result would just be wp:or anyway.Readin (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why was H.H. Kung in Germany? to get in hitler's villa for vacation? and why is he smiling? and why does ma ying jeou imitate hitler?

It is certainly arguable that the KMT was fascist and that it remains fascist even today. But the end result of that argument would be wp:or. If you want to include the information, find some reliable sources that say the KMT was fascist. Readin (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, gimme the definition of fascism and tell me how the KMT is fascist. Same for Confucious. Liu Tao (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called diplomacy and negotiations. He's smiling because they're taking a picture. What, you don't smile when someone takes a picture or you? As for imitating, Hitler, he's not. It's called a Roman Salute. Americans used to do it as their citizen's salute, that is until Hitler came to power. The Americans\ demonised it and made it the "Nazi Salute". The Salute was used throughout Germany since the Prussian Empire. The Chinese military was largely modelled after the German Military of the Weimer Republic, which later turned into the Nazi Military. It's not shocking that the salute is the same. Sure, the salute's no longer used by the military, since it's more modelled toward the British and American militaries since Post-WWII, but the salute's still used in swearing of oaths and inauguration (in the case with Ma, the inauguration). The ROC's not the only nation that uses the salute either, Mexico uses it too for swearing of oaths and inaugurations too. Get your facts straight before trying to be a jerk.Liu Tao (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

I semi-protected this article to prevent an anonymous user who has been making edits that violate the Wikipedia:Manual of Style Here is information on Wikipedia style, and links that explain why:

• In headings, only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized -- see WP:MSH
• Do not link dates -- see MOS:SYL
• Do not link plain English words and don't link the same things repeatedly -- see WP:OVERLINK
• Spell out acronyms on first use -- see WP:MOS

Ground Zero | t 12:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Redirect

Hello I was looking at the requested articles list and found a request for "Overthrow of Kuomintang, 1927". I was wondering if it could/should redirect here? ZachInOhio^{(talk)(edits)} 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, IMO it shouldn't be a redirect at all. AFAIK it isn't a common name for those events, and moreover is debatably POV... But if it were a redirect, it would be a redir to Chinese Civil War instead of Kuomintang. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if it would violate POV. I thought that I should ask before I did anything. Thanks ^-^ ZachInOhio^{(talk)(edits)} 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a redirect violates NPOV so long as the redirect points to the best honest guess of what the reader is looking for. Is there a policy that applies? If not, then I think it does no harm for "Overthrow of Kuomintang, 1927" to redirect to someplace the reader can find information on that topic, even if their search shows an extreme bias.

The search entered by the user may show bias, but even if it goes to a redirect, that bias is not transmitted to any other reader. And consider the reader's dilemma. He or she may only know one description of the event. They may have learned about it from biased sources and are coming here to get a broader perspective and other viewpoints. Should we deny them that information simply because we don't like the search term they entered?

So long as the redirect is an honest attempt to point to what the reader is searching for, I don't see how it can be an NPOV violation. What would be a violation would be put in something like "incompentent communist president" redirecting to Barack Obama or "unrepentent war criminal" redirecting to George W. Bush.. Readin (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Address

Apparently we can't agree with a formal style to state the address of the articles in Wikipedia, as we cannot agree on how to put down the address of the KMT headquarters. Okay, tell me, how does one state the address and location of a building? What does the Wikimanual say about that? Liu Tao (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if the Wikimanual has a rule for stating the address of a building. If they do, I doubt there is a custom one for locations in Taiwan. That's why I went to the KMT website to see how they give the address of their own building. I looked at both English and Chinese. The English version was exactly as I put it in the article. The Chinese version did not include the country or state, but instead gave Taipei City at the beginning of the address. Readin (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If they do, why would it matter where it is? As long as you have a certain system, all is well. Address/location systems are easy to deal with, I mean, it goes from smallest to largest in order of heirarchy, I mean, what's so hard about that? The Chinese puts things in the opposite direction, they put the largest in front and the smallest in the back so the full address would be 中華民國臺北市中山區八德路二段232－234號. That's the full address, but they don't need to put the ROC on because well, it's the same reason as why they don't put "United States" after the address for the Republican Party HQ. Liu Tao (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You ask why it would matter where the address is. Consider that one of the changes you were pushing for was to change "Taiwan" to "Taiwan Province". However, the Chinese address you give doesn't include "Taiwan province". And if it did, the English wouldn't necessarily include it. For example, addresses in the U.S. say "New York, New York" not "New York City, New York State". Addresses in Canada will say "Ontario", not "Ontario Province". Should the same standard apply everywhere? Readin (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am such an idiot, I forgot Taipei's not part of Taiwan. That's why it doesn't include "Taiwan Province" and goes directly to "ROC". That's error on my part, still, we've got the issue to deal with what to use for the state's name, obviously as usual. One of us here's gonna say that we should copy the address on the website, the other one of us's gonna say no we use a set system for doing the address. I've poked around the manual and found guidlines for Chinese names, apparently the examples they give just end at the cities and stuff goes as high up as the Provinces go. I think we should just end it at "Taipei" and don't add the State. Liu Tao (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is a very political article, ending with Taipei would be tolerable as it is obvious from the context that the state is the ROC. Also, given the political nature of the topic, using "ROC" rather than "Taiwan" (identifying the state rather than the country) would be consistent with the convention of using "ROC" in political contexts and "Taiwan" in non-political contexts. However if it continues to be a contentious subject then I think we should defer to both the reliable source and to the way the KMT describes its own address (similar to the way you wish to defer to the way the Chiang had his government describe him as a "President"). Readin (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, Chiang's address was the official title. The official name of the state would be "Republic of China", not "Taiwan (ROC)". Reason I want to end it at "Taipei" would fit the manual as well as prevent a debate. The ROC describes their address... It's different in Chinese then it is in English, you know that. They put the "Taiwan" in so foreigners won't get muddled up. It's not about how they describe their address either, there's no such thing as an "official address format". Wikipedia has their own guidelines as how to deal with it. If this continues, we'll just throw in the manual and tell them to go over it. Liu Tao (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say the "KMT describes its own address". I accidentally wrote "ROC" (an easy mistake to make). I fixed it above. Readin (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Please stop changing the address format, there is a set address format, please abide to it)"

Where does one find this format? And since when does such a style convention overrule a reliable source? Readin (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The format is universal, it goes from small to big. In this case, it'd be the street address, district, city, state. (province is skipped because Taipei is a municipality). The state's name is not "Taiwan", it is "Republic of China". Liu Tao (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The KMT are giving their state as "Taiwan (ROC)" following the common practice of using "Taiwan" to refer to the state formally called "Republic of China". They have also added "(ROC)" for clarification. Notice that there is no comma between "Taiwan" and "(ROC)" (For that reason your earlier edit in which you joined the two under one wikilink was correct.). What group is more willing to defend the status of "ROC" as a state called the "ROC" than the Kuomintang? Their political identity for years has been largely based around the idea that Taiwan is nothing more than a backwater province of the grand and wonderful "China" they fantasize about. If they choose to call it "Taiwan (ROC)" will you accuse them of a pro-independence bias? Will you accuse the ruling political party of Taiwan of not knowing the details of their administrative apparatus?

I don't need to have an argument with you about the proper way to write this. We don't need to argue about whether the address should be given as "Taipei, Taiwan" following normal English practice, or whether it should be given using an overly formalized and confusing "Taipei, Republic of China" which could result in packages being mis-delivered to mainland Asia. We don't need to have that argument because we have a reliable source that knows more about the topic than either of us and that as the subject of the article gets some amount of deference as to how some things should be presented. Readin (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they say, the state is not "Taiwan (ROC)", the state is ROC. It doesn't matter about their political identity as well, sure I have my own theories why they did what they did, but those don't matter. What matters to me is what's is is is, not what they appear to be. One should maintain the good habit of maintaining a set format, I abide by the universal formatting of putting the political entities/administrations in their respective heirarchy from smallest to largest. Wikipedia supports what's is, not what they appear to be. The state's name is not "Taiwan", and that will be the end of that. What "Taiwan (ROC)" indicates is that Taiwan and the ROC are the same entities, which you know very well they are not. Liu Tao (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they say... They are a reliable source. You, no matter how good your reasoning skills, logic, and perfection, are not a reliable source. Have you read WP:V like we've been asking you to? Readin (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite them being reliable sources, that doesn't mean the wordings they use are on par with what's what. You want source? The official name of the Republic of China is "Republic of China", it is not "Taiwan", it is not "Taiwan (ROC)", it is "Republic of China". This is not logic, this is what's what and what's not. I care about what is, I don't care about what others say. If it is wrong, I change and correct it, it it is right, I leave it be. Liu Tao (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You want source? Yes. I do.

The official name of the Republic of China is "Republic of China", it is not "Taiwan", it is not "Taiwan (ROC)", it is "Republic of China". That's a statement from Liu Tao, an editor. It is not a source. Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable source. Readin (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a statement from me, this is what it is. You want source? Go check the government Website, Constitution, and all that other stuff. Even the multiple databases out there will state the official name is the ROC. There's also the passports as well as other official documents. Plus, in chinese, the name 中華民國, not 臺灣, go figure there English counterparts are. Liu Tao (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Liu Tao, you're not being honest is your problem. You are pushing a particular point of view that sees Taiwan as only a part of the Republic of China because this implies a nice convenient mirror-image, but symmetrical POV between the ROC and the PRC that there is one China. But not everyone sees the world that way, and certainly not the majority of people in Taiwan. But in the majority of use cases, from informal street conversations to newspapers formally writing about foreign affairs, Taiwan is used as the name of the government, the country, the people, the state, the land, etc. But yes, the formal name constitutionally (and you should also know what is constitutional even is not the highest authority--in Taiwan many laws are unconstitutional but still used and many parts of the constitution are simply ignored--is the Republic of China. So it would make more sense to say Taiwan and when you want to make it more clear, you can say Taiwan (ROC).--PWittgenstein (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the "One-China" policy, it doesn't work nor does it fit logic. Currently there are 2 states in existence that goes by the name of "China", so technically there are 2 Chinas just like there are 2 Koreas. Hey, I myself don't like the idea of there being 2 Chinas, but I still abide by them because it's how it is, no matter how much I hate the idea. All I know is that the name of the state is not "Taiwan", it's "Republic of China", and that Taiwan IS a part of the ROC, both the province and the Island. It may sound critical and harsh, but that's how it is, both the Province and the Island are administered by the ROC, not by the PRC, not by the "State of Taiwan", but by the ROC. As for modern cases and conversations, I don't care about those as well. If you ever talk to me or others like me who makes sure their wordings are all correct and stuff, you'll know that I don't talk like "everyone else does". I say something and means exactly what it is, I don't call the ROC "Taiwan" because the ROC is not Taiwan. I care about the official names and specific names and stuff, I don't care what people commonly speak. People speak in slang all the time, does that mean that we should start writing the articles in slang? People get confused, so what? It's not my fault for them being so ignorant and refusing to click on the links provided for them to do further reading to clear up their minds. Why should I accept something that is not correct so someone doesn't get confused? No, if they're not confused, they won't do further readings and studies, and they'll never learn what's correct, so in a way, if you give in to the "common folks", you're doing more harm then good. Liu Tao (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not slang. In the most formal situations, Taiwan is called Taiwan instead of the ROC. Not always, but often. But it is never called China. Argue the points, don't put up strawmen.--61.224.52.87 (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In the most formal situations where? In the Western states? What about the 23 nations that recognise the ROC? They recognise it as the sole and only China, what, you don't think they'll refer to the ROC as China there? Or are you saying those 23 nations don't matter because they're not important? And slang is only an example. I don't care what you say about formal setting or anything, all I care about is what's what. If you say something that's not correct, it doesn't matter how formal the setting is, it's still incorrect. Wikipedia does not support incorrect or inaccurate facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs) 11:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this issue has not yet been settled, so what is exactly the problem now? I've stated my reasons and rebuttals, but you guys choose to ignore them and go along with your edits. Either stop ignoring me or stop making them changes. Liu Tao (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the address should be as it is now with "Taiwan (ROC)" at the end. This is how the Republic of China is called internationally (actually it's just "Taiwan" in general) and this is clearer for most people. Obviously this is also the address on the KMT website and the source is provided, so I don't get what the issue is here. As for the "common practice" being "street address, district, city, state" - this is not correct, there are no such standard nor consensus on Wikipedia about adress format. Actually, very often the adress format is "street address, district, city, country (or equivalent)". See for example Louvre or University of Barcelona. Laurent (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a reliable source. Let's use it. Readin (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Source is incorrect. Name of the state is not "Taiwan (ROC)", it is "Republic of China". Liu Tao (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of repeating arguments back and forth at each other, go get a third opinion and settle this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese or Taiwanese

The Wikipedia guidance for stating the ethnicity for people is to allow them to self-identify. I think that has some merit here as well. Since the KMT still thinks of Taiwan as a slave rather than as a home, why should we call the KMT "Taiwanese"? Can we change the wording to "...is a Chinese political party in Taiwan..." or perhaps "...is a political party representing China's interests in Taiwan..."?

Claiming that the KMT is a Chinese party solely based on the fact that they support the One-China policy would be original research IMO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the KMT cannot (at least openly) say that they are Chinese because they would lose support of like 50% of Taiwan's population, so they usually say they are both Chinese and Taiwanese like Ma Ying-jeou did. So perhaps we should put that the KMT is considered both a "Chinese and Taiwanese" political party? Laurent (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We could:

• Go with common sense that says the KMT is lead by Chinese who consider it the duty of their party to support China's annexation of Taiwan, therefor the part is Chinese - but you're right that would be OR
• Find a source that shows that the KMT says whether they are Chinese or Taiwanese.
• If we can't finda source for what the KMT says, we can either use sources that say what they are, or simply leave it out and say the KMT "is a political party in Taiwan".

I think saying "Chinese and Taiwanese" is a bit wordy and confusing. Readin (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't their name self-explanatory?

I think it's fine to avoid both labels: "is a political party in Taiwan".--Jiang (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

KMT is a political party of the ROC, they are not confined to only Taiwan, but reach Kinmen and Matsu as well. KMT is a party of the ROC, not Taiwan, therefore it's a Chinese Party, not just Taiwanese. Liu Tao (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "a political party in Taiwan" is a much better compromise. It's closer to the sources and more accurate than "a political party in the ROC", which could mean many different things depending on political preferences, historical context, etc. Laurent (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Liu Tao has a good suggestion. "Political party of the ROC" makes more sense. First because we prefer "Taiwan" in non-political contexts and "ROC" in political contexts, and this is clearly a political context. Second, Laurent perhaps unintentionally supports using "a political party in the ROC" by calling to mind the fact that the KMT has always been a political party of the ROC, whatever country the ROC has governed, while the KMT has only been a political party of Taiwan since 1949. Readin (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

According to my friends from Taiwan. They are Taiwanese, not Chinese. They were insulted when I said otherwise. The ruling minority that had escaped to Taiwan are Chinese. Or Chinese decendants. But the natives are not. Different ethinic group, different language.

--The Rangoon Post, Co-Editor

Original research, unverifiable. And learn how to sign comments properly. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As for a reference, talk to the Taiwanese government's delegation in Washington, D.C.

--The Rangoon Post, Co-Editor

Strongly oppose - are we completely forgetting that, prior to 1949, the KMT was the ruling Chinese party in all China, including the mainland? This article consists of historical aspects of the KMT as well, and is not centred on the KMT on Taiwan. Additionally, there is no official country name of "Taiwan"; it is the ROC. The ROC controls the island of Taiwan, under the name Taiwan Province, ROC, as well as a few islands under the jurisdiction of Fujian Province, ROC, the Penghu islands, the Dongsha Islands, and Itu Aba. The name "Taiwan" used in this context is strongly misleading, as the ROC controls more than just Taiwan, was more than just Taiwan, and claims more than just Taiwan. Regardless of ROC or PRC, Chinese is Chinese. Just as West Germany, East Germany, Prussia, Nazi Germany and Holy Roman Empire are all Germany, just as North Korea, South Korea, Joseon, Silla and Empire of Korea are all Korea, ROC and PRC are all "Chinese". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Emblem

Does anyone feel that the party emblem in the infobox is not a perfect circle? What happened to the older file that was there? Blueshirts (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the lower right side isn't quite smoothly rounded. Is that what you mean? Readin (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan

Shouldn't the "Taiwan"'s be changed to "Formosa" because that's what it was at the time? 68.198.207.202 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

An excellent question, but there doesn't seem to be a standard answer for treating historical names. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Style_for_names_in_historical_articles. where I asked a very similar question. The practice regarding Taiwan seems to be to always use "Taiwan". I've never seen a Wikipedia article that made extensive use of "Formosa".Readin (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan under the KMT was never called Formosa. "Formosa" was used during Dutch colonial rule of the island, prior to Chinese control by Ming loyalists, and subsequently the Qing. During that time, Taiwan was known as the "Kingdom of Tungking". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Formosa was also during Portuguese rule. Actually it is also known as Formosa due to maps which are made 20-60 years ago. This could be said, but right know (almost) everyone knows it as Taiwan, so we should keep that trend. Still the name Formosa should be explained as a name used by Europeans and nowadays by some tw. organisations like FAPA. --快樂龍 09:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Kuomintang = Taiwan?

The very first sentence of the article should be clarified somehow:

The Kuomintang of China (pronounced /ˌkwoʊmɪnˈtɑːŋ/ or /-ˈtæŋ/ in English; abbreviated KMT; Hanyu Pinyin: Guómíndǎng, GMD), translated as the Chinese Nationalist Party, is a political party of the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known internationally as Taiwan since the 1970s. This seems to say that the Kuomintang of China has been commonly known since Taiwan since the 1970s... which I think is not the case. Emika22 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We can always take out the 'ROC' in the Paranthesis and put in the 'commonly known as Taiwan since the 1970's' in instead. Liu Tao (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kuomintang/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

24 images, 128 citations. Lacks sources through sections. Prose not good in shape. JJ98 (Talk) 04:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)