Talk:Kuomintang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kuomintang article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject China (Rated B-Class)

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Chinese politics workgroup.

To-do list for Kuomintang:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Things to do: Read the suggestions here: Wikipedia:Peer review Edit the History section according to the results of the latest election. Reduce the article size while still keeping it informative. See Wikipedia:Article series. Discuss whether Centrism deserves to be in the "Ideology" section. Copyedit (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) Remove any speculation about upcoming elections, etc.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. --Ji ang 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)

[edit] 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. --Ji ang 17:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 {{FascismProject}} 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Please FOCUS

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

1 History
2 Policies
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Etymology

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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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.^[1] --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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)