Talk:Xi'an Incident

message: The article was clearly written by someone for whom Englibobsh 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)
thread_title:  Language Barrier 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fact Check 

message: 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 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xi'an Incident needs editing. 

message: "...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV in the Effects section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CCP or CPC