# Talk:Xi'an Incident

The article was clearly written by someone for whom English is a foreign language, most likely someone more familiar with Chinese.  While it is admirable that the author is trying to explain the incident in English, the English-speaking community would be better served by an article written by someone who actually knows how to write in English.219.81.224.53 (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It's planned by CCP to avoid its destruction and to stop Ching to destroy them. Its supported by USSR.

I would like to see a sources added to confirm the statement "During the conflict, Shao Yuanchong (邵元冲 in Chinese), the incumbent minister of the propaganda department of the KMT, died after he was hit in his testicles while attempting to climb over a fence". This description sounds a bit too whimsical to include without a reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravail (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 

There is significant editorialising in this article. Some of it is justified by "most parties agree" et al, but without more sources listed this is hard to accept. I have tidied some of it, but it needs redoing by someone who knows the subject better.

There is nothing in this article to explain why it is called the Xi'an Incident.
This article is in need of some serious quality boosting.  There are major grammar errors, and terrible sentence structure.

Xi'an is the city of Xi'an, simply. Yug [[User talk:Yug|<font color="226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 10:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Yang", who is the general "Yang", is it truly Yang Hucheng ? I had replace most of "Yang" by Yang Hucheng, but I'm not sure.
"He", what is his complete name ?
"Tung Cheuk Heem", who is him ? What is his pinyin name ? Is he the "He" just before ?
Thanks to complete this some points if you are able to do it :]
Yug (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[From another person]
-General Yang is indeed Yang Hu Cheng.
-He is indeed the last name of the general He Ying Qin
-An alternate transliteration for a general Dong, which is in any case wrong, since the general temporarily put in charge of the military was actually the aforesaid He Ying Qin.

-Agreed, He Yingqin was in charge of military, "Tung Cheuk Heem" is nobody, just delete it from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferZH (talk • contribs) 

"...since the incident saved the CCP from total annihilation but put Zhang in custody for life."
It is not clear at all that the CCP was facing total annihilation in the near or medium term from Nationalist forces barring a comprehensive peace and even alignment with the Japanese, and such an unfavourable state of affairs is sure to complicate things a lot further - upsetting many warlords who stand to lose much from such an agreement either due to proximity to Japanese spheres of interest or, in the case of Zhang, loss of any chance to regain their powerbase; Nationalists who would regard the acknoledgement of the loss of Manchuria unacceptable (a peace agreement in which Japan does not at least demand that China recognises Manchukuo is unlikely at best, since all of Japan's subsequent dealings including with Wang's puppet regime included that, and Manchuria certainly was sufficiently Chinese - of the thirty millions or so more than ninety percent were Han, and of the remaining, a substantial number of the Manchus also indentified with China - to make this an issue, as it did historically); as well as drawing unfavourable attention from the Soviet Union, which at that point was perfectly capable of stepping up the conflict through arms supplies to the Shaanxi-Ningxia CCP base via Mongolia (Stalin supported the Nationalist government historically because it was considered more efficient - as late as 1945 the Soviet Union did not support the CCP's goal of unifying China - q.v. Soviet communications with the Greek Communist Party in '48, but if the Nationalist goverment were to show signs of aligning with Japan, all bets are off), making the CCP's position no worse off.

"However, there are new findings arguing that Zhang was a CCP member indeed, but his real status was so secret that only a few people such as Zhou and Ye Jiangyin knew about it. With all these witnesses passing away, the true status of Zhang may remain secret. But if Zhang’s CCP membership could be proved, the history of Xian Incident would be rewritten to be a conspiracy of the CCP instead of a spontaneous patriotic action."
A source for this would be welcomed.  The subsequent confusion shown by the CCP leadership seems to suggest otherwise.  In any event it seems doubtful that the CCP would have planned this event in advance.  No doubt they considered a united front desirable, but coercing Jiang by capturing him would have been amongst the worse ways to do it, for reasons of Jiang's personality (he had broken agreements before, and was known to be vengeful), politics (either Jiang was to be released, in which case he would then be free to tear up any agreement he might or might not have signed, or he was not to be released, in which case a general power struggle was more likely to result, favouring perhaps the Wang faction of even Long Yun's clique, or more likely Jiang's own clan, but in any case all of them would have been happy to see Jiang rot) and propaganda value.  Going to all this trouble just for the uncertain possibility of a united front and truce with Jiang seems foolhardy at best, and if the CCP had such influence over Zhang they might as well have just had him declare for the CCP.

"It is generally accepted that the CCP got most of the benefit from this incident. Chiang did abide by the peace agreement and stopped the suppression until the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War in 1945. Mao exploited this precious peace to enlarge his power base and strengthen his power grip. By conforming to Soviet policy, Mao pleased Stalin and avoided the czar’s further interference. In particular, CCP won great support from the Chinese people for being an open advocate of the anti-Japan United Front. All this work laid a stable foundation for CCP’s victory over KMT after the end of the anti-Japanese war"
Calling Stalin 'Czar' (Which, for those interested, is the Bulgarian form at any rate, not the Russian one) can hardly be called NPOV.
As well, there are a number of problems regarding the peace-agreement's effects, notably the fact that low-level hostility resumed as early as 1940 and flared up in the New Fourth Army incident, and it can hardly be said that there was general peace between the two parties.  Moreover, to characterise that period of history as 'peaceful' for the communist strains the imgination to the breaking point as regardless of friction with the Nationalist government, the communist forces were infiltrating and in many cases operating within enemy-controlled territory.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.61.145 (talk • contribs)  Antonrojo 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you have some good ideas for fixing the WP:NPOV problems with this article. If you've signed up for a named account, I suggest you  be bold and make the changes. Antonrojo 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that when Chiang Kai-Shek was kidnapped he did not have his dentures? According to The Soong Dynasty (Seagrave) he spent 11 days without any dentures. This might be worth adding to the article if true.24.22.28.146 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008there was a  special omo yart Bold text (UTC)

As was popular with political photos at the time, the photo showing Chiang Kai-Shek et al at time of arrest appears to have been edited; only against convention, on this occasion a person appears to have been added rather than removed - back row fourth from left, between uniformed man and left side of doorway.

Note the shadow on the opposite side of the face to the others in the composition, the difference in focus, and the lack of symmetry with the space on the other side of the group/doorway.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Xi'an Incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724131108/http://www.wehoo.net/book/wlwh/a30012/04582.htm to http://www.wehoo.net/book/wlwh/a30012/04582.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we use CCP or CPC on this page? Chinese Communist Party has much talk about this if you need some back ground.Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

i brought in some new info and sources to the page, so as to bring light to new sources and findings in recent years, and to counteract WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and potentially WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. there was a large lack of nuance on the original page, and much of it seemed to be written solely from Zhang Xueliang's and the CCP's pov/accounts of events. hopefully this will be a step in the right direction.   
the sources used in this edit include rana mitter's forgotten ally, jay taylor's the generalissimo, richard frank's tower of skulls, and a series of assorted sources and papers. any thoughts would be appreciated. Wahreit (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The details of this topic are extraordinarily complex and fraught with POV issues (as you can imagine). Often sources say conflicting things that I have needed to carefully reconcile. I would appreciate your help spotting suspicious, contradictory, or incomplete ideas that I may have missed. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)