Chinese Civil War and Talk:Adi Shankara: Difference between pages

Revision as of 02:33, 21 September 2005

Revision as of 23:58, 13 November 2005

Line 1:

==Archive==

:''See [[Taiping Rebellion]] for the Chinese Civil War of [[1851]] to [[1864]] that killed 20 to 50 million people''

*[[/Archive 1]]

The '''Chinese Civil War''' was a conflict in [[China]] between the [[Kuomintang]] (The Nationalist Party; The Nationalists; KMT) and the [[Communist Party of China]] (CPC). It began in [[1926]] when the KMT, led by newly-appointed Generalissimo [[Chiang Kai-shek]] put a stop to leftist and Communist party-infiltration by purging these members from Nationalist membership. It ended in [[1949]] with an unofficial cessation of major hostilities, with the Communists controlling [[mainland China]] and the Nationalists controlling [[Taiwan|Taiwan Island]], [[Penghu]], and several outlying [[Fujian]]ese islands.

==The FirstBad Unitedfaith edits Front==

To defeat the [[warlordism|warlords]] who had seized control of much of Northern China since the collapse of the [[Qing Dynasty]], [[Kuomintang]] leader [[Sun Yat-sen]] sought the help of foreign powers. His efforts to obtain aid from the Western democracies were ignored, however, and in [[1921]] he turned to the [[Soviet Union]]. For political expediency, the Soviet leadership initiated a dual policy of support for both Sun and the newly established [[Communist Party of China]]. The Soviets hoped for Communist consolidation but were prepared for either side to emerge victorious. Thus the struggle for power in China began between the Nationalists and the Communists.

When a User reverts all my edits with no explanation but a childishly untrue claim in the edit summary that my own edit summary was inaccurate, I don't feel the need to explain my consequent revert, and I shan't in future. If anyone wants to explain what they think is wrong with my attempts to improve the article, then I'll be happy to discuss the issue. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

In [[1923]] a joint statement by Sun and a Soviet representative in [[Shanghai]] pledged Soviet assistance for China's national unification. Soviet advisers &mdash; the most prominent of whom was an agent of the [[Comintern]], [[Mikhail Borodin]] &mdash; began to arrive in China in 1923 to aid in the reorganization and consolidation of the KMT along the lines of the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]. The CPC was under Comintern instructions to cooperate with the KMT, and its members were encouraged to join while maintaining their party identities, forming the '''First United Front''' between the two parties. The CPC was still small at the time, having a membership of 300 in 1922 and only 1,500 by [[1925]]. The KMT in 1922 already was 150,000 strong. Soviet advisers also helped the Nationalists set up a political institute to train propagandists in mass mobilization techniques and in [[1923]] sent [[Chiang Kai-shek]], one of Sun's lieutenants from [[Tongmeng Hui]] days, for several months' military and political study in [[Moscow]]. After Chiang's return in late 1923, he participated in the establishment of the [[Whampoa Military Academy]] outside Guangzhou, which was the seat of government under the KMT-CPC alliance. In [[1924]] Chiang became head of the academy and began the rise to prominence that would make him Sun's successor as head of the KMT, but it was Chiang's harsh policies against the CPC that started the Civil War.

Your well aware of my objections to your watchdogging this page, we've already discussed this [[User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara|here]]. its seems I'm not alone in my concerns... funny, that... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

== Northern Expedition (1926&ndash;1928) and KMT split ==

:You mean that you reverted my edits because you object to my having this page on my Watchlist and trying to improve it and protect it from poor edits? Well at least you're honest about your bad-faith editing, but that doesn't really make it any better. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Just months after Sun's death in [[1925]], Chiang, as commander-in-chief of the [[National Revolutionary Army]], set out on the long-delayed [[Northern Expedition]] against the northern warlords to unite China under KMT control.

I object to your reverts, and the reasoning for them, yes. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By [[1926]], however, the KMT had divided into left- and right-wing factions, and the Communist bloc within it was also growing. In March 1926, after thwarting a kidnapping attempt against him, Chiang abruptly dismissed his Soviet advisers, imposed restrictions on CPC members' participation in the top leadership, and emerged as the preeminent KMT leader. The Soviet Union, still hoping to prevent a split between Chiang and the CPC, ordered Communist underground activities to facilitate the Northern Expedition, which was finally launched by Chiang from Guangzhou in July 1926.

== RfC ==

[[Image:China 1920s.jpg|thumb|250px|Government troops round up prisoners.]]

As [[User:Sam Spade|SS]] insists on reverting my edits but refuses to explain (the nearest he gets is calling them "bizarre" in his edit summary) I've asked for comments. Fresh eyes on the article would be appreciated. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In early [[1927]] the KMT-CPC rivalry led to a split in the revolutionary ranks. The CPC and the left wing of the KMT had decided to move the seat of the Nationalist government from Guangzhou to [[Wuhan]]. But Chiang, whose Northern Expedition was proving successful, set his forces out to destroy the Shanghai CPC apparatus. Arguing that communist activities were socially and economically disruptive, Chiang turned on Communists and unionists in [[Shanghai]], arresting and executing hundreds on [[April 12]], 1927. The purge widened the rift between Chiang and [[Wang Ching-wei]]'s Wuhan government (a contest won by Chiang) and destroyed the urban base of the CPC. Chiang, expelled from the KMT for his actions, formed a rival government in [[Nanjing]]. There now were three [[capital of China|capitals in China]]: the internationally recognized warlord regime in Beijing; the Communist and left-wing civilian-military regime at Wuhan; and the right-wing Kuomintang regime at Nanjing, which would remain the Nationalist capital for the next decade.

:I think we're getting a little too quick on the revert trigger on the part of both parties here. Maybe both Mel and Sam could agree to try observing a variation on the [[Wikipedia:One-revert rule|one-revert rule]] for a little while; let the article sit as it is right now, and commit only non-revert edits for a while. If one of you makes an edit that the other disagrees with that you would ordinarily revert, discuss it on the talk page. Most of the edits at issue in the series of reverts I look at and think "some of these are good changes, some are debatable, and some should probably be undone". Reverts of an entire submission is too coarse a tool for dealing with these situations, particular the debatable changes. The real problem here is that edits by third parties are at risk of being inadvertantly wiped out during reverts and counterreverts (this seems to have happened in the latest edit by [[User:Imc]]). Sound sensible? --[[User:Spasemunki|Clay Collier]] 05:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, that is my thought entirely. This all started because I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=26218323&oldid=26103100 this revert by Mel]. As you can see from [[User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara]], that has been my concern all along. Also, if you notice, I have been observing the 1 rr, making no more than 1 revert every 24hrs, and I have done my best to merge in any actual improvements. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 14:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The [[Comintern]] cause appeared bankrupt. A new policy was instituted calling on the CPC to foment armed insurrections in both urban and rural areas in preparation for an expected rising tide of revolution. Unsuccessful attempts were made by Communists to take cities such as [[Nanchang]], [[Changsha]], [[Shantou]], and [[Guangzhou]], and an armed rural insurrection, known as the [[Autumn Harvest Uprising]], was staged by peasants in [[Hunan]] Province. The insurrection was led by [[Mao Zedong]].

:Could you both please summarise the stylistic or other differences between you two here? It looks like an extremely trivial dispute. --[[User:Ravikiran r|Ravikiran]] 17:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

But in mid-[[1927]] the CPC was at a low ebb. The Communists had been expelled from Wuhan by their left-wing KMT allies, who in turn were toppled by a military regime.

It is. Basically I object to Mel having reverted a generally good edit, I reverted his revert, he reverted me back, and here we are. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The KMT resumed the campaign against warlords and captured [[Beijing]] in June 1928, after which most of eastern China was under Chiang's control, and the Nanjing government received prompt international recognition as the sole legitimate government of China. The Nationalist government announced that in conformity with Sun Yat-sen's formula for the three stages of revolution &mdash; military unification, political tutelage, and constitutional democracy &mdash; China had reached the end of the first phase and would embark on the second, which would be under KMT direction.

:I made a series of edits that I thought improved the article. SS reverted them, calling them bizarre. Since then he's refused to explain what it is about them that is bizarre, or to which he objects. I am still completely in the dark as to his reasons for revrting. Some of my edits reverted earlier edits by an anon, which I take to have replaced good style with slightly worse style. For example:

== Agrarian Revolution (1927&ndash;1937) ==

::"From a young age, Shankara was attracted to asceticism and to the life of a renunciate. His mother Aryamba was however entirely against his becoming a ''Sannyasi'', and consistently refused him her formal permission, which was required before he could take ''Sannyasam''. Once when Shankara was bathing in the river, a crocodile gripped him by the leg and began rapidly to drag him into the water."

:was changed to:

::"From a young age, Shankara was attracted to [[asceticism]] and to the life of a renunciate. However, his mother, Aryamba, was entirely against his becoming a ''Sannyasi'', and consistently refused him her formal permission, which was required before he could take ''Sannyasam''. Once when Shankara was bathing in the river, a [[crocodile]] gripped him by the leg and began to rapidly drag him into the water."

:Why SS thinks that the former is so much better as to warrant regular reverting I don't know. I don't hold that so-called split infinitives are grammatically wrong and must be avoided, but I can see no reason to insist on including one when the original text avoided it.

:The changes which I reverted also included unnecessary division of the article into smaller sections, a lot of duplicated internal links, some PoV language (e.g., I replaced "his greatest lesson" with "his main lesson"), and the addition of a section which mentions what one writer (out of very many) has said about Shankara's dates &mdash; an addition which I think is somewhat PoV, as it raises one opinion above others. I also removed a duplication in the bibliography ("The commentary on the [[Bhagavad Gita]]" appears both as book that he certainly wrote and as one that he probably wrote, but on which there's no scholarly agreement, and I organised the external links section so that links to the same sites were grouped together.

:Why is SS reverting all these and a host of other edits? I don't know; he refuses to say. The nearest he's come is to say that he opposes my watching over this article &mdash; something that Wikipedia editors do all the time (including, of course, SS himself). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 23:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I would describe that as a complete mischaracterisation, and advise any interested parties to review my statements, the links I provide, and the articles edit history. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

During the Agrarian Revolution, Communist Party activists retreated underground or to the countryside where they fomented a military revolt ([[Nanchang Uprising]] on [[August 1]], [[1927]]), combined the force with remnants of [[peasant]] rebels, and established control over several areas in southern China. Attempts by the Nationalist armies to suppress the rebellion were unsuccessful but extremely damaging to the Communist forces.

:There will be a user conduct RfC is false edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=27475128&oldid=27360203 this] continue to be used. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 16:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Long-march.jpg|thumb|250px|A Communist leader addressing Long March survivors.]]

==Attempt to resolve dispute==

After Chiang Kai-shek had foiled the coup to oust him launched by [[Feng Yü-hsiang]], [[Yen Hsi-shan]], and [[Wang Ching-wei]] (1929&ndash;30), he immediately turned his attention to rooting out the remaining pockets of Communist activity. The first two campaigns failed and the third was aborted due to the [[Mukden Incident]]. The fourth campaign (1932-1933) achieved some early successes, but Chiang’s armies were badly mauled when they tried to penetrate into the heart of Mao’s [[Soviet Chinese Republic]]. Finally in late 1933 Chiang launched a fifth campaign orchestrated by his German advisors that involved the systematic encirclement of the [[Jiangxi]] Soviet region with fortified blockhouses. By the fall of 1934, the Communists faced the possibility of total annihilation. It seemed that the time was now ripe to finish off the CPC, then turn against the remaining warlords, before finally retaking [[Manchuria]] from the Japanese.

:I wonder if the two of you couldn't try to go through the items in dispute one by one and find agreement on at least some of them? For example, the first item is "Hindu [[scripture]]s" v. "[[Hindu]] [[scripture]]s"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=27545022&oldid=27543146]. Now, I don't have a strong opinion about this, but it seems to me that since [[Hinduism]] is hyperlinked a few lines above, and that links in turn to [[Hindu]], that might suffice. But then, that is just my opinion.

:The next item is [[Namboothiri]] v. [[Namboodiri]]. The latter redirects to the former. So, I don't understand why this is in dispute. It should be [[Namboothiri]]. The discussion of the spelling of this name should be moved to the [[Namboothiri]] talk page so that the editors of that article can participate.

In October of 1934, the Communists decided to make a massive military retreat to the west to escape the ensuing KMT forces. It was under this yearlong, 6000 km retreat, called the [[Long March]], which ended when the Communists reached the interior of [[Shaanxi]], that [[Mao Zedong]] emerged as the top Communist leader. Along the way, the Communist Army confiscated property and weapons from local warlords and landlords, while recruiting peasants and the poor, solidifying its appeal to the masses.

:The third item is ''is'' v. ''are''. Since the subject of the sentence, "traditional source", is singular, "is" is the correct word.

== Second Sino-Japanese War (1937&ndash;1945) ==

:Now, I notice that I've sided with Mel on the first two items, and Sam on the third, but I would caution both of you against drawing any conclusions from this. That is just how it happened to come out. The important thing is that if you can come to an agreement on any or all of these items, maybe some of the other items can be resolved as well. Even if you can't resolve all the items, finding agreement on some would be a big help if you do have seek arbitration to resolve the balance. Thank you both for trying to improve Wikipedea and best wishes. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Chiang Kai-shek.jpg|thumb|200px|Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (pictured here in March 1945) was severely weakened in power by the Second Sino-Japanese War.]]

Thank you for your helpful comments. So that you know, [[Hinduism]] does not link to [[Hindu]]. [[Namboothiri]] I have no problem with, but he reverted a large number of wikilinks as well. My primary problem is his usage of a revert in these cases, which was clearly inappropriate and problematic. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 23:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

During the Japanese invasion and occupation of [[Manchuria]], [[Chiang Kai-shek]], who saw the Communists as a greater threat, refused to ally with the Communists to fight against Japanese. On December 12, 1936, Kuomintang Generals [[Zhang Xueliang]] and [[Yang Hucheng]] kidnapped Chiang Kai-Shek and forced him to a truce with the Communists. The incident became known as the [[Xian Incident]]. Both parties agreed to suspend fighting and form a Second United Front to focus their energies against the Japanese. In 1937 Japanese airplanes bombed Chinese cities and well-equipped troops overran eastern China. Cities that were overrun included Beijing and Guangzhou.

:Sam, I appreciate very much your agreement with my opinion on the [[Namboothiri]] matter. I will proceed to make the change. I'd like to ask that Mel not revert the article to his version as long as progress in resolving the disputed items is occurring. I know that will be disagreeable to him because it is mostly Sam's version at this point, but I would be grateful for Mel's help in this regard. Now, the matter of whether [[Hinduism]] links to [[Hindu]] can be resolved, I think. The link that I found is just above the table of '''Contents''' of [[Hinduism]]: "See [[Hindu]] for more about a Hindu and different communities of Hindus." Now, I think that is bad style because it is easy to overlook. I had to search for it. I think it would be better if a place for [[Hindu]] could be found in the first two or three sentences. The wording of the sentence containing the link is bad too, because it is reminiscent of the '''See also''' section at the ends of article and breaks up the flow of the writing. But, perhaps we can agree to work with the other editors of [[Hinduism]] to improve the wording and to give [[Hindu]] more prominence. Thank you. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The alliance that was created with the Communists was in name only. The level of actual cooperation and coordination between the CPC and KMT during the Second World War was minimal. In the midst of the '''Second United Front''', the Communists and the Kuomintang were still vying for territorial advantage in "Free China" (i.e. those areas not occupied by the Japanese or ruled by puppet governments). The situation came to a head in late 1940 and early 1941 when there were major clashes between the Communist and KMT forces. In December 1940, Chiang Kai-shek demanded that the CPC’s [[New Fourth Army]] evacuate [[Anhui]] and [[Jiangsu]] Provinces. Under intense pressure, the New Fourth Army commanders complied, but they were ambushed by Nationalist troops and soundly defeated in January 1941. This clash, which would be known as the [[New Fourth Army Incident]], weakened the CPC position in Central China and effectively ended any substantive cooperation between the Nationalists and the Communists and both sides concentrated on jockeying for position in the inevitable Civil War.

Oh, I'm sorry, i misunderstood you at first. I thought ''you'' thought [[Hindu]] redirected to [[hinduism]] (which it once did, but no longer does). Now I see you were refering to the fact that the article [[Hinduism]] contains within it a link to [[Hindu]]. That is indeed the case, but I feel this article ([[Adi Shankara]]) ought to link to [[hindu]] as well, and indeed generally should link to a wide variety of relevant articles. I sincerely appreciate your mediations here, Walter Siegmund. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

==Post-war power struggle (1945&ndash;1947)==

:Sam, I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in my previous comment. For the record, it seems to me that a reader of this article is probably already fairly knowledgeable about Hinduism and Hindus since a beginner would be unlikely to start here. On the other hand, at least one link is appropriate, just to be safe. It seems to me that Hinduism is the more relevant of the two. From Hinduism, the reader can reach Hindu, albeit with the misgivings I expressed previously. I am sure that you know of the discussions occur among editors on the extent of links. Many share your view that the links should be more extensive than less. I would summarize as follows: More links are better because who can know what link might be helpful to a future reader v. too many links make it hard for the reader to find the one that is useful or necessary, and detract from the appearance of the article. I think we should give Mel an opportunity to comment. I'm pleased that you think I've been helpful, Sam. Thank you. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:1945 chiang-mao.jpg|thumb|250px|Chiang and Mao met in the wartime capital of Chongqing to toast to the Chinese victory over Japan, but their shaky alliance was short-lived.]]

==Use of links==

The dropping of the atomic bomb and the Soviet entry into the Pacific War caused Japan to surrender

:First, for the record, I made the change of Namboodiri to Namboothiri before my edit above at 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC). Second, I want to thank Mel for not reverting the current content.

much more quickly than anyone in China had imagined. Under the terms of the unconditional [[Japan]]ese surrender dictated by the United States, Japanese troops were ordered to surrender to KMT troops and not the Communists.

:Since the subject of links has been broached, I wonder if it wouldn't be good to try to resolve that category next, rather than item by item. A cross-wiki link to Wiktionary may be better for some of the links, but for now, I'd like to focus on only the issue of whether the word should be linked or not. Here are my thoughts.

With the sudden end of [[WWII]] in [[East Asia]], [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] forces flooded into the [[Manchuria]]n Provinces to seize Japanese positions and to take the surrender of the 700,000 Japanese troops still stationed in the region. Later in the year Chiang Kai-shek came to the painful realization that he lacked the resources to prevent a CPC takeover of Manchuria following the scheduled Soviet departure, he therefore made a deal with the Russians to delay their withdrawal until he had moved enough of his best-trained men and modern material into the region. The Soviets spent the extra time systematically dismantling the entire Manchurian industrial plant and shipping it back to their war-ravaged Motherland.

:[[Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_not_be_linked|What should ''not'' be linked]]

:'''Plain English words:'''

*[[crocodile]]

*[[universe]]

*[[mortality]]

*[[theistic]]

:The time, space, causation, change and eternity articles do include sections on philosophy, but it is embarrassing that the only comment on Asian thought on these matters I found was one sentence in [[Causality]]. Consequently, a reader of this article would find little of help in those. Moreover, this article does not discuss the philosophy of time, space, causation, change or eternity in any significant detail. But, I would support linking to those articles once they include significant Asian philosophical content. But, even then, the link should be to the philosophy section, not to the top of the article. I didn't find anything on philosophy or religion in [[universe]] or [[mortality]].

*[[time]]

*[[space]]

*[[causation]]

*[[change]]

*[[eternity]]

:[[Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked|What should be linked]]

General [[George Marshall]] arrived in China and was part of negotiations over a cease-fire between the KMT and the CPC, the terms of which would build a coalition government that would include all of the contending political/military groups in China. Neither the Communists (represented by [[Zhou Enlai]]) nor Chiang Kai-shek’s representatives were willing to compromise on certain fundamental issues or relinquish the territories they had seized in the wake of the Japanese surrender. Notably, however was the fact that the Nationalists demilitarized 1.5 million troops in an effort to support the Marshall Mission, whereas the Communists did not. The truce fell apart in the spring of 1946, and although negotiations continued, Marshall was recalled in January 1947.

:'''Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully:'''

*[[Vishwanath]]

*[[Kashi]]

*[[Shiva]]

*[[Ishwara]]

*[[Manisha Panchakam]] But only if the article is written promptly.

*[[Nrsimha]]

*[[Kali]]

*[[Laksmi]]

*[[Buddhism]]

*[[South India]] Kashmir is linked, so South India or India should be linked as well (but only the first occurrence). The second is a redlink.

:'''Technical terms should be linked unless they are fully defined in the article:'''

==Final stage of fighting (1946&ndash;1949)==

*[[shlokas]]

*[[atman]] But only the first occurrence and it should be spelled consistently in this article (and hopefully with the referenced article as well).

*[[sacerdotalism]]

:'''Discussed earlier, see entry at 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) above.'''

With the breakdown of peace talks, an all out war resumed. To the Communists, this stage was called the War of Liberation (解放战争). While the Soviet Union provided limited aid to the Communists, the United States assisted the hopeless Nationalists with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of now surplus military supplies and generous loans of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment.

*[[Hindu]]

:Thank you. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 18:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Belatedly, the Nationalist government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of the rampant corruption in government and the accompanying political and economic chaos including massive [[hyperinflation]]. By late [[1948]] the Nationalist position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Nationalist troops proved no match for the communist [[People's Liberation Army]]. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. Although the Nationalists had an advantage in numbers of men and weapons, controlled a much larger territory and population than their adversaries, and enjoyed considerable international support, they were exhausted by the long war with Japan and the attendant internal responsibilities.

We don't agree philosophically regarding wikilinks, I feel more is better, and that any concivably useful link should occur at least once per section. However, you have been communicative and reasonable regarding your preference, so I am willing to accept your preference for this page, as long as Mel does not resume reversions of edits which improve the article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 23:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

After numerous operational set-backs in Manchuria, especially in attempting to take the major cities, the Communists were ultimately able to seize the region and then focus on the war south of the Great Wall. In January [[1949]] [[Beijing|Beijing]] was taken by the Communists without a fight, and its name was changed back to Beijing. Between April and November, major cities passed from Nationalist to Communist control with minimal resistance. In most cases the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities.

:Sam, thank you for your spirit of cooperation and your interest in resolving disagreements through discussion. I think I summarized your position on links (and that of those who disagree with you) in my comment of 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC), but correct me if I'm wrong. We are fortunate, however, that the [[Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context|Style Guide section on links]] can help us resolve our differences. That is why I linked to sections of the Style Guide in my list of the links in dispute above. I thought that you and Mel might be able to discuss whether the link in question was in the correct sublist, rather than rehashing philosophical positions on links. The latter is not relevant to this discussion, in my view, and is unlikely to lead to agreement, in any case.

Ultimately, the Communist Party was victorious. On [[October 1st]], [[1949]] [[Mao Zedong]] proclaimed the [[People's Republic of China]]. Chiang Kai-shek and 600,000 Nationalist troops and 2,000,000 refugees, predominantly from the government and business community, fled from the [[mainland China|mainland]] to the island of [[Taiwan]], and there remained only isolated pockets of resistance. In [[December]] 1949 Chiang proclaimed [[Taipei]], Taiwan, the temporary capital of the [[Republic of China]] and continued to assert his government as the sole legitimate authority in China.

:Subsequent to your acceptance of the link changes that I suggested, I was disappointed to see that Mel reverted the article that you and I were working on to his version and requested that it be blocked. Further effort on my part, in the absence of participation by Mel, seems fruitless to me. Best wishes to you both. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

==People==

===Kuomintang===

*[[Chiang Kai-Shek]]

*[[Wang Ching-wei]]

*[[Liu Chih]]

*[[Tu Yü-ming]]

*[[Fu Tso-yi]]

*[[Sun Li-jen]]

*[[Li Tsung-jen]]

Your attempt to mediate has been noted and appreciated. Thank you very much. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

===Communist Party===

*[[Mao Zedong]]

*[[Zhu De]]

*[[Zhou Enlai]]

*[[Lin Biao]]

*[[Peng Dehuai]]

*[[Chen Yi (communist)|Chen Yi]]

*[[Liu Bocheng]]

*[[Nie Rongzhen]]

===Article Warlords =protected==

The article has been protected per the request at [[WP:RFP]]. And please don't accuse me of taking sides, Mel did not contact me and I'd have protected the [[meta:The_Wrong_Version|wrong version]] either way. Once you've resolved your differences of opinion, it can be unprotected. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

*[[Zhang Zuolin]]

*[[Zhang Xueliang]]

*[[Feng Yuxiang]]

*[[Yen Hsi-shan]]

*[[Sun Chuan-fang]]

:LOL! What a joke, as soon as reasonable people start agreeing on what edits to make, a good friend of Mel (who has refused to participate in discussion) locks the page... shortly after Mel reverts! What a coincidence! [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

==The War after 1949==

== My position ==

Most observers expected Chiang's government to eventually fall in response to a Communist invasion of Taiwan and the United States initially showed no interest in supporting Chiang's government in its final stand. Things changed radically with the North Korean invasion of South Korea in January 1950, thus triggering the [[Korean War]]. At this point, allowing a total Communist victory over Chiang became politically impossible in the United States, and President [[Harry S. Truman]] ordered the [[U.S. 7th Fleet]] into the Taiwan straits, ending any possibility for a successful Communist invasion.

I had explained to SS why I'd made the edits that I had, and he refused to discuss the issue, merely making general comments about me and the edits (mainly in edit summaries). I eventually (two days ago) asked for the page to be protected. I'm currently struggling with a particularly heavy teaching load, so I'm a couple of days behind checking on my Watchlist (I'm now at 02:06 on 8 x 05, if anyone's interested), and I missed the current discussion. I'm pleased that the intervention of a third party, Walter Siegmund, has finally brought SS to the discussion, but I'd asked for page protection before most of that discussion had taken place.

Some American historians have theorized that the loss of mainland China to the Communists enabled [[Joseph McCarthy]] to purge the [[China Hands]] from the [[U.S. State Department]]. In turn, it is possible that [[John F. Kennedy]] lacked the advice of any real experts on [[East Asia]] when he was trying to formulate a policy on [[Vietnam]], which would imply that the Chinese Civil War can be linked causally to the [[Vietnam War]].

I agree with almost everything that Walter Siegmund said, and even where I don't I appreciate his calm and serious approach. I hope that he'll return to the Talk page. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on Taiwan, throughout the [[1950s]] and [[1960s]], intermittent skirmishes occurred throughout mainland's coastal and peripheral regions, though American reluctance to be drawn into a larger conflict left Chiang Kai-shek too weak to "retake the mainland" as he constantly vowed. ROC fighter aircraft bombed mainland targets and commandos, sometimes numbering up to 80 and sent by the U.S. military, landed repeatedly on the mainland to kill PLA soldiers, kidnap CPC cadres, destroy infrastructure, and seize documents. The ROC lost about 150 men in one raid in 1964.

== Proposal to resolve this dispute ==

The ROC navy conducted low intensity naval raids, and lost some ships in several small battles with the PLA. In June 1949, the ROC declared a "closure" of all mainland ports and its navy attempted to intercept all foreign ships, mainly of British and Soviet-bloc origin. Since the mainland's railroad network was underdeveloped, north-south trade heavily depended on sea lanes. ROC naval activity also caused severe hardship for mainland fishermen.

Sam Spade and Mel Etitis, thank you both for your kind words about my efforts. I've been thinking about how best to proceed given that Mel Etitis has little time to devote to this discussion at present and that it is in all of our interests to unblock the article promptly so that we and others can resume our efforts to improve it. Since you both have expressed confidence in my efforts and little inclination to examine my comments one by one, I wonder if a solution along the follow lines might be acceptable?

After losing the mainland, a group of approximately 1,200 KMT soldiers escaped to [[Burma]] and continued launching guerrilla attacks into south China. Their leader, General [[Li Mi]], was paid a salary by the ROC government and given the nominal title of Governor of [[Yunnan]]. Initially, the U.S. supported these remnants and the CIA provided them with aid. After the Burmese government appealed to the United Nations in 1953, the U.S. began pressuring the ROC to withdraw its loyalists. By the end of 1954, nearly 6,000 soldiers had left Burma and Li Mi declared his army disbanded. However, thousands remained, and the ROC continued to supply and command them, even secretly supplying reinforcements at times. Raids into mainland China gradually ended by the late 1960s as PLA infrastructure improved. Remnants of these KMT loyalists remain in the area and are active in the [[opium trade]].

*I will undertake to edit the disputed items consistent with my suggestions above. These have been accepted by Sam Spade and mostly agreed to by Mel Etitis.

*I will edit the items not yet discussed in a manner that seems best to me. I will give prompt consideration and response to queries posted here regarding all edits.

*Both parties will agree to not make any further change(s) to the disputed items without proposing the change(s) here for comment one week prior to making the change(s). Each agrees to make the change(s) only if a clear consensus, or no dissent, occurs.

*In the future, both parties agree to avoid criticizing one another or their actions in general terms. A well-reasoned comment on a specific edit is appropriate, however, and will be accepted as such by the recipient.

*Both parties agree not to revert the other in the future on this or any other article. But, if you edit anonymously, please don't complain if you are reverted by the other.

*Neither party is restrained by this agreement from reverting edits by third parties to this or other articles, as he sees fit, and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia.

*Both parties agree that this is the full and final settlement of this dispute and agree not to rehash it henceforth.

*Once both parties have accepted these terms (or as modified by subsequent discussion), Mel Etitis will request the block on the article be removed so that the other items can be accomplished.

*For the record, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=27545022&oldid=27543146| difference page] for the disputed items.

Thank you for your consideration of my proposal. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 19:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Though viewed as a military liability by the United States, the ROC viewed its remaining islands in Fujian as vital for any future campaign to retake the mainland. On [[September 3]], [[1954]], the [[First Taiwan Strait crisis]] began when the PLA started shelling [[Quemoy]] and threatened to take the [[Dachen Islands]]. On [[January 20]], [[1955]], the PLA took nearby [[Yi Kiang Shan]], with the entire ROC garrison of 720 troops killed defending the island. On January 24 of the same year, the U.S. Congress passed the [[Formosa Resolution]] authorizing the President to defend the ROC's offshore islands. Instead of committing to defend the ROC's offshore islands, President Eisenhower pressured Chiang Kai-shek to evacuate his 11,000 troops and 20,000 civilians from the Dachen Islands, leaving them for PLA takeover. [[Nanchi Island]] was abandoned as well, leaving Quemoy and Matsu the only major islands remaining. The First Taiwan Straits crisis ended in March 1955 when the PLA ceased its bombardment, amid U.S. threats of escalation and use of nuclear weapons.

:I agree to that, unless the agreement not to revert applies to pages other than this one, and w the stipulation that Mel (and I) not revert non-vandalism edits to this page w/o prior consensus. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The [[Second Taiwan Strait Crisis]] began on [[August 23]], [[1958]] with another intense artillery bombardment of Quemoy and ended on November of the same year. PLA patrol boats blockaded the islands from ROC supply ships. Though the U.S. rejected Chiang Kai-shek's proposal to bomb mainland artillery batteries, it quickly moved to supply fighter jets and anti-aircraft missiles to the ROC. It also provided amphibious assault ships to land supply, as a sunken ROC naval vessel was blocking the harbor. On [[September 7]], the U.S. escorted a convoy of ROC supply ships and the PRC refrained from firing. On [[October 25]], the PRC announced an "even-day ceasefire" &mdash; the PLA would only shell Quemoy on odd-numbered days. By the end of the crisis, Quemoy had been struck with 500,000 artillery rounds and 3000 civilians and 1000 soldiers had been killed or wounded. Quemoy and Matsu were major campaign issues in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1969 | 1960 United States Presidential elections]]. Gradually through the 1960s live artillery was replaced by leaflets.

Sam Spade, I'm sorry. I can't agree to your stipulation to allow reversions of each other's work under any circumstance and I've modified the language above to make this clear. I fear that to do otherwise opens the door to a transfer of this dispute to another article or a resumption of the dispute on this article. I think that the history of this dispute demonstrates that reversion is not going to resolve a dispute between you and Mel Etitis. You are not giving up a useful tool by agreeing to this provision. You are gaining an end to the vexation that his reversions have caused you. I would be very grateful if you would be kind enough to reconsider your objection to this provision. Thank you. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In January 1979, the PRC announced it would stop shelling Quemoy and Matsu. Though the PRC [[Third Taiwan Strait Crisis | conducted missile tests]] in 1995&ndash;96 and escalated tensions, armed clashes between the two sides have ceased. Since the late 1980s, there has been growing economic exchanges on both sides while the Taiwan straits remain a dangerous flashpoint. The political dynamics across the Taiwan straits have changed with Taiwan's democratization and a more vocal [[Taiwan independence]] movement throughout the 1990s. Ironically, in Taiwan itself, the Kuomintang has become one of the more active supporters of a conciliatory policy toward the PRC and the Communist Party.

:There's nothing in [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]]'s proposal to which I could reasonably object, and I agree to all parts, and thank him for the time and thought that he's put in to this. I'd rather not tie my hands with regard to edits by anyone else, though. (For example, the insistence of certain religious groups to impose their non-standard views concerning Shankara's dates don't count as vandalism, but needs to be dealt with.) --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

==Related articles==

*[[History of China]]

*[[History of the Republic of China]]

*[[Political status of Taiwan]]

Mel Etitis, thank you for your prompt reply, especially in light of your busy schedule. Nothing in my proposal should be construed as restraining either of the parties from reverting edits by third parties as he sees fit and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. I've added language to this effect above. Thank you for pointing out the need to explicitly address this point. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[[Category:Civil wars]]

[[Category:Chinese wars]]

[[Category:Communist Revolutions]]

[[Category:Guerrilla wars]]

[[Category:World War II politics]]

:In that case I cannot agree, this entire problem is the result of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=26218323&oldid=26103100 a revert Mel made of an anon edit]. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[[de:Chinesischer Bürgerkrieg]]

[[ko:국공내전]]

::Thank you for giving serious consideration to my proposal. I have found that fighting other people's battles is rarely rewarded or appreciated. But that is your decision. Perhaps you can understand my disinclination to put effort into resolving a dispute that seems certain to erupt again. Best wishes. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[[ja:国共内戦]]

[[pt:Guerra Civil Chinesa]]

::Sam Spade, you deserve a more complete response than I've given. I am sorry. I don't think your proposal that you and Mel Etitis not revert non-vandalism edits to the article without prior consensus is workable. What is and is not vandalism is a matter of judgement. I think before long you would disagree and fall back into conflict. The POV date dispute, is not [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|Vandalism]], in my opinion. If that is correct, under your proposal, a consensus would have to be obtained before each such edit could be reverted. Surely, the ensuing delay would only encourage the POV advocates. I suppose that an exception could be made for that category, but that makes deciding when to seek consensus before reverting more complex and thereby open to criticism. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 04:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[[sk:Čínske občianske a revolučné vojny]]

[[sv:Kinesiska inbördeskriget]]

I don't like seeing Mel revert good edits. That is the root of our conflict here. I am agreeable w things that make that stop happening. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 03:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[[zh:国共内战]]

==Outside comments on this dispute==

I don't understand. I can't find any differences of opinion, only some relatively dubious grammatical 'correction'. Is there really any difference in substance between the two supposedly alternative articles?

{{unsigned|195.93.21.104|09:06, 13 November 2005 }}

:Editing disputes often seem to be about rather minor matters when viewed by others. However, it is important to know that the editors of an article often care a great deal about the subject and the content of the article, e.g., [[Chimera]] and [[Circumcision]]. I found the following differences (parties correct me as necessary):

* grammar, especially the use of split infinitives.

* spelling/upper & lower case (always a problem when transliterating between two languages).

* extent of word-linking.

* the number of sections.

* one item in the biography list.

* wording described as somewhat POV.

* inclusion of a reference described as somewhat POV.

:I think that the progress made above suggests that it is possible to resolve these matters. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be at the root of this dispute. Sam Spade states, "... this entire problem is the result of a revert Mel made of an anon edit. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way." Also, "I don't like seeing Mel revert good edits. That is the root of our conflict here. I am agreeable w things that make that stop happening." [Talk:Adi_Shankara#Proposal_to_resolve_this_dispute]

:When I thought this dispute was about content, I resisted commenting on its history. (Rehashing the past is not a good way to move forward.) At this point, however, a short comment may be in order. I think [[WP:AGF|AGF]] might have helped. Suppose Sam Spade had assumed that Mel Etitis had overlooked the good points in the edit in question and that he would appreciate a kind and thoughtful note on his talk page to that effect. Something like the following might have been appropriate:

...

Regarding your reversion of the edits of 129.79.205.132 on [[Adi Shankara]], I think you may have overlooked certain positive aspects of those edits.

* An extra parenthesis was deleted in the first line. It is easy to miss, but surely a good thing.

* South was made lower case in keeping with my reading of the [[WP:MoS|MoS]] on directions. Am I misinterpreting the MoS here? I notice that [[South India]] exists. Perhaps that link should be substituted here.

* I wonder if the variant spelling of keraliya might be kept parenthetically, at least until the redlink article is stubbed and it can be debated there?

* Perhaps one or two of the grammar edits could be retained on the principle of [[WP:bite|encouraging newcomers]]?

Thank you for considering these items and for your efforts fighting vandals.

Best wishes, ...

:I think Mel Etitis may have responded in a manner more to your liking to such an approach. I think it is important to keep in mind the saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

:In conclusion, I don't know how, short of an indefinite block, to prevent an editor from reverting good, or bad, edits. All you can do is try to persuade the editor of your opinion of a particular edit. If you make a good case, most editors will either agree with you or try to reach an acceptable compromise. If not, you may have made the editor more receptive to the edit and you may persuade third parties. In either event, if you move on, you can improve some of the other 800,000 articles that need your attention. The anonymous editor, 129.79.205.132, has done that and has been complemented on his/her [[User talk:129.79.205.132|talk page]] on the quality of his/her contributions.

I hope that those reading my comments will not see them as one-sided. Although I have directed most of my comments toward Sam Spade, I have criticized the reversion of Mel Etitis in my example of how Sam Spade might have handled the dispute differently.

:Best wishes, [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=26218323&oldid=26103100 The anonymous edit at the root of this dispute.]