Talk:Chinese Civil War

War is ongoing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course.

The Chinese civil war has never ended – it has just shifted means, modes and tempo, and the “war” has continued to the present day.[1]

The underlying truth in Taiwan is that the Chinese civil war, started in the 1940s, has never formally finished.[2]

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

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

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

• Encyclopedia Britannica – Date: 1945–1949 [3]
• Historical Dictionary of the Chinese Civil War by Christopher R. Lew & Edwin Pak-wah Leung – the final, decisive stage of the war ending in 1949, the period after described as the "postwar" period [4]
• The Chinese Civil War 1945–1949 by Michael Lynch – has it in the title, and says "there is a sense in which [the war] never ended", but also repeatedly refers to the end of the war in a straightforward sense being in 1949, talks about the postwar period after that time, talks about two states emerging from the war.
• China at War: An Encyclopedia by Li Xiaobing – describes the Civil War as ending in 1949.
• China's Civil War: A Social History, 1945–1949 – describes the Civil War as ending in 1949.
• China: A New History by John K. Fairbank – describes the Civil War as being won by the PRC in 1949.
• The Cambridge History of China: Volume 13 Republican China 1912-1949. Part 2 edited by Albert Feuerwerker & John K. Fairbank – describes the "Third Revolutionary Civil War" as ending in 1949.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move discussion in progress

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

Noteworthy?

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

It is already mentioned in the lead:

The CCP gained control of mainland China and proclaimed the People's Republic of China in 1949, forcing the leadership of the Republic of China to retreat to the island of Taiwan.

(Also, HISTORY.com is not a very good source as an aside.) Remsense诉 07:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the reply. Would it be alright to mention Project National Glory in the intro? That "President Chiang Kai-shek intended the retreat to be temporary, aiming to regroup, fortify, and eventually reclaim the mainland. This plan, named "Project National Glory," never materialized." I don't see that being mentioned in the lead despite it should be. 49.186.211.203 (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is too minor a detail to mention a later plan that never materialized in the lead of an article for what was a very large conflict involving millions of people over decades. Remsense诉 07:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I suppose I can understand that. Thanks again for the speedy cool reply. 49.186.211.203 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, let me know if you have any more questions! Remsense诉 07:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Does the war end with the flight to Taiwan or the capture of Hainan?

I see someone has quietly changed the end date of the war to 1950, corresponding to the Battle of Hainan Island. Partially per above, this is simply not reflective in my understanding of how sources periodize the conflict. Instead, people usually point to the end of the war being CCP victory on the mainland in 1949, with Hainan treated as clean-up analogous to the periodization of many major wars. What do people think? Remsense ‥ 论 01:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

1949 is the better view. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm assembling a proper cite bundle to put on it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The question is, should we use 7 December: that is, the date that the KMT retreat began? A few sources seem to cite 10 December, if not explicitly as the end of the war, but as the chronologically final day in which Chiang himself got on the plane to Taiwan. Remsense ‥ 论 01:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

End Date?

This conflict has always been a messy one as the insurgency activity and remnant fighting lasted quite a while. KMT insurgents on the mainland lasted until 1954, there were guerillas in Xinjang until 58, first Taiwan strait crisis which saw several islands captured was in 1955, the forces in the Burmese Border kept fighting China until 1961, and some remnants continued to operate illegally as drug cartels in Thailand well after. Not to mention the third strait crisis or the lack of a technical treaty ending it.

However, I think 1951 is probably a better ending date than 1949. Everything after that is either Insurgency or minor conventional fighting in the first two strait crisis that’s seperate by a few years (though I note sources at the time seemingly often considered the conflict ongoing until after 1955 when the deadlock was firm).

I advocate for 1951, specifically May, because it covers pretty much all the heavy conventional contiguous fighting. In December 49 the KMT still held huge chunks of the South West of China and had a conventional presence in East Turkestan. Not to mention Tibet was still resisting. By Mid 1950 the KMT lost most of the mainland, then in the back half of the year they lost their conventional control over Xinjiang leaving it to Insurgency as well as Hainan after a hard fought landing. Then in October we saw the start of the Tibet campaign and the distraction that was Korea sapping forces meant for Taiwan.

The last serious conventional threat of the KMT on the mainland was wiped out by February 1951 following the loss of Baoshan in January and the wipeout of defensive forces, leaving the remainder to either go insurgent or flee to Burma. And in May Tibet officially surrendered to China. That would be it for conventional fighting until the strait crisis years later. Ignoring 1950 is foolish given how much conventional warfare occurred then 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:2DA9:89CF:5364:B3E4 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I recognize the appeal in this rationale, but for our purposes we need to go by what the balance of sources reflect (or even better, discuss the different dating and logic for doing so based on sources in the body). Your comment is thoughtful, but the driver of the discussion should be -- and what are the best sources for the different constructs of an 'end date?' JArthur1984 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

I will note a lot of that is in hindsight(People in December 1949 very much did not consider it over, neither did Chinese military planners, both Chiang and Mao intended to end things militarily prior to the first strait crisis showing Chiang wasn't capable of retaking the mainland and Mao was weakened by the Korean War, US intervention after that effectively locking the conflict as that was the last time territory changed hands between them excluding the insurgents in Turkestan and Burma), December 1949 being when this conflict ended is a very post-Nixon visit mentality rather than what people at the time thought or what's really objectively the most correct(1951 was kind of a compromise, based on what I know of the time the First Taiwan Strait Crisis in late 54 early 55 was really the point this transitioned from active to frozen conflict in both a leadership mentality and in terms of land on the ground), but whatever can't fight the majority. I hate the way a ton of stuff is either named or sorted, it's internally inconsistent with other conflicts or overly stuffy or dumb, but that's how it is. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:C6B:3399:2571:A231 (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Like for example, I think the best way to categorize Ukraine(in line with how Nagorno Karabakh or Libya were handled) is 3 articles. "Donbas War' for the active conflict that lasted exactly a year, from February 20th 2014 when fighting first started in Crimea to February 20th 2015 when the battle of Debaltseve ended and Minsk II took effect. Then an article for the low intensity conflict that lasted for 7 years, mostly occasional shelling deaths or skirmishs, a few major flareups like Avdiivka in 2017 or Kerch Strait in 2018. Then the full blown Russo-Ukrainian War in 2022 starts. But nope, because they renamed the military intervention page back in 2019 to that now the war is the entire 2014-today period even though that's terribly misleading and not how Libya or Azerbaijan were handled and trying to suggest otherwise makes me Pro-Russian even though I'm trying to approach this academically 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:C6B:3399:2571:A231 (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC) (Manchuria, that was the other example I couldn't remember. That's honestly probably the most solid case. The limited invasion and following low intensity conflict are their own things seperate from the full scale war in 37) 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:C6B:3399:2571:A231 (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

IP, you were asked a direct question, and instead of acknowledging it you blew right past it to continue your extemporaneous musing. This talk page is not a discussion forum, and it was made clear what the criteria for changes to the article would be. If you are interested in improving the article, please stay on topic, and preferably make responses comparatively brief, and with consideration of this and the above previous discussions in mind. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 04:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)