Talk:1987 Lieyu massacre

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Potato Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit required

This article suffers from poor English. It urgently requires an edit.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia is an open resource. Your statements in this comment are concerning, Mickie-Mickie. I sympathize with your motivations, but Wikipedia is not your WP:SOAPBOX. "The process of research and edits are to seek the truth", "every clue is open to exam", "filling in the missing link in history" raise concerns based in Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I will also add: with all due respect, and no intention to insult you, but your English is very difficult to understand for me as a native English speaker. I came to this article because I was interested to learn about the subject, but I found about half of the article nearly incomprehensible due to the quality of the English. Normally, I would simply fix any mistakes, but it's honestly very difficult to comprehend what you were intending to say, so I wouldn't know where to start with fixing it. Perhaps a good starting point would be for you to explain what you meant to say in the article in your native language, and someone can help improve the translation quality.

Good morning, Unsigned anonymous account, Welcome to Wikipedia! You have put the comment on the wrong topic area, so hereby reposition it to the right place to reply:

1. The linguistic quality of article has been a known issue already raised by Royalcourtier since 30, May, 2017 for more improvement contribution. Please feel free to make literature correction for the article or follow up in the topic by all means, however mass deletion on 48 entries of legal references and making comment on the wrong topic with no input after all makes no sense.

2. This article was created by Qrfqr his excellency on 5 August 2013‎, followed by over 270 edits from 70 more editors' contribution so far, clearly not written by one person's style like mine as you assumed. I simply added a large portion of historical data with references to the existing structure with previous editors' inputs before. Please kindly check on the "View history" tab to see the edits' details before making your assumption.

3. Playing the racism card and launching personal attacks do not work in Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is not a place for intelligence warfare. Please behave and respect yourself, thanks.  Mickie-Mickie (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan's lack of refugee law

"Over 100 years after its establishment in 1911, Republic of China still doesn't have the Refugee Law today."

Taiwan does posses laws surrounding the treatments of refugees, eg. Art. 19 of the 1999 Immigration Act https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=D0080132

http://aprrn.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Taiwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.145.241 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The 1999 Act applies to the regular immigration applicant, not for the refugees and the Stateless people as the UN Refugee Convention defines. The real Refugee Act of Taiwan ( http://zh.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E9%9B%A3%E6%B0%91%E6%B3%95%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88 ) was rejected in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2020, and several cases such as Kurds have been repatriated back against the international refugee law in 2013 and 2019 -- Sincerely, Mickie-Mickie

Ownership issues...

@Mickie-Mickie: I think you need to review WP:OWN. This. Is. Not. Your. Page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear HorseEye's Back, Wikipedia is an open resource, hence nobody claims the ownership on any article here. Please don't put your words on other people's mouths as in your talk page, or in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion before. The entire process of research and edits are to seek the truth whereas the public has the right to know, particularly when the evidences were systematically destroyed and the witnesses were silenced as dead people can't talk with 30 years of denial, ignorance and lies to forge a fake hero prestige covering fascism and protecting privileges till the military literature award still cheating the public last autumn... Every clue of intelligence and forensics is open to exam, and you are surely welcome to join in filling the missing link in history at any time of your preference. However dictating a simplified "gold rule" to eliminate reference unprofessionally against the freedom of media with a hidden agenda in another 30 years will not be possible. We were nobody but little servicemen simply let people know what happened to prevent the history repeating by any excuse again. Thanks for your attention, and hope you have a good day! Sincerely, Mickie-Mickie (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mickie-Mickie: your edit warring over what appear to be appropriate tags would demonstrate that your ownership issues with this page have not abated... We don't seek the truth, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Wow, bravo! you surely got the great talent to mis-use "We don't seek the truth" gold rule to cover up then justify the evil doings. Dr. Tunchi Chang is the truth investigation committee member of the DDP government being assigned to the re-investigate this case, and the interviews with the witnesses at scene are revealed. Second-lieutenant Wenhsiao Liu is a secondary witness himself, who has followed this case for 35 years but still got unanswered but only being insulted. Their open statements are far more creditable than your mind attempt, and now you are putting your own words in other people's mouths again. Nobody ever owns the page, but stop sabotaging the collection of historical statements either. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What evil doings? Please be specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

It has come to my attention as I was reading this article that many of the sources are not reliable sources or may not be reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Most egregious are the Facebook posts (sources 25, 33, 34, 37, 39, 48, 49 and 86). Facebook is explicitly mentioned as an unreliable sources for being user-generated self-published sources. In addition, many other sources are either Youtube links or blog posts from various platforms. These may also classify as unreliable sources. 220.233.199.171 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

your attention comes 35 years late with the distruct on the veteran witnesses through Facebook by definition to silence the whistleblowers, but questioning no realibility issue on the falsified testimonies of the war criminals and the official records forgery to cover up the misconduct of the Kuomintang government in the Republic of China, which actually continue orchaestrating the collusion to manipulate the data and arguments to influence the public opinion on media to justify the wrongdoings and the facts around victims, and therefore becomes the behavioral pattern in the thousands of unsolved cases thoughout the martial law period, such as the major ones: Lin Yi-hsiung, Chen Wen-chen, Min Ping Yu 5540 cases...

This case and the detailed article had been reported to the International Criminal Court in Hague before, and received the reply that "(the Court) has a very limited jurisdiction", "may only address the crimes as defined by by Articles 6 to 8 of the Rome Statute that have occurred after 2002, and can only exercise jurisdiction in the countries that have ratified it" - as this crime occurs before 2002 and the ROC is not a member state of the United Nations, (whereas the People's Republic of China sides with the Chinese Nationalist Party wouldn't raise an issue which was put forward by the Democratic Progressive Party against the Chinese nationalism propaganda.) However Any UN state can exercise the universal jurisdiction granted by the 1949 Geneva Conventions to arrest the War crimes, but won't be able to collect the sufficient evidences to proceed the legal procedure an effectively, so the jurisdiction finally returns to the domestic legal system.

Variety of the source media with the freedom of speech is the key to solve the case. As long as the professional dilemma of the scenario of "coach being the referee in the same process" remains on both Control Yuan reports, and the golden rule of anti-communism is still mis-used as the end to justify the means, the same result of the histocial corruption situation will repeat, regardless now and then like the Chiang dynasty in China and Taiwan (1930-1988) , the Marcos in Philippines (1965–1986), Chun Doo-hwan in Korea (1980-1988)...then the applied technique with the birds of a feather flock together pattern would always self-evidently cover the truth over again from the public for good. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest edits

@Mickie-Mickie: @Horse Eye's Back: I'm concerned about the re-addition of the information I removed here. There are quite a few problems; primarily sourcing. At first, this was attributed to two facebook posts by someone allegedly involved in the incident, but now a new source has been added: this article. The article text it's supposed to support specifically says "The last words of the pregnant woman were in English: "Help me ... Help my baby ... My baby seven months ...", before being executed by .45 Caliber handgun shots with two other women, then the battalion operation officer made joke on her dead body and have never shown any remorse during the annual reunions with meals in the later years.", but this new source is much more broad and does not support these very specific claims, just like the facebook posts only supported some of it, again for example the 45. pistol part, but not the lack of item enumeration, or the responsible people not having regret, which begs the question: What is the source of these claims? You said in your edit summary "WP:SECONDARY (publicized 158D veteran activities & who hosts this year's reunion))", and if I'm interpreting this correctly, you seem to be drawing negative inferences from the presence of people/lack of acknowledgement at events related to this, and that is original research. Doubling back to the facebook source, I'm still confused about this source: The name of the person sharing this post is "Wenxiao Liu", but the person who apparently revealed all of this is "Chen Shui-bian", so is/was the facebook guy in contact with this individual or was he involved in some other way? How did he get these details? The facebook post is extremely light on details on any of this. These claims are all quite graphic and scandalous to the point that I think we're making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. 2.108.187.68 (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

First, you did not make an edit, but only made twice of mass deletion of 1371 and 1070 characters to remove the entire parts of the pregnant woman and the senior lady of the primary witnesses (the machine gunner, the medic and the ammunition specialist) through Dr. Chang's communication with Second-lieutenant Liu (who was the first and has taken the most research in this case since 2007) on two posts "19 corpses and 20 lives" and "Framing the Conscription Reservist Officer" after the MND's Screenplay Reward concern by the accusation that the Facebook is not a reliable source. The general Facebook quality concern has been raised both on the title top and in-text note, which does not render your excellency the authority to eliminate all the evidence in this individual case.

The last words of the pregnant lady: "……help me, help my baby. my baby seven months...." and the officer's comment afterward "我還沒看過孕婦的屍體，等下把她的肚子剖開來 !" (I haven't seen a dead body of a pregnant before, wait to cut her belly open later!) were noticed clearly in the statement on the first post "#19屍20命" (19 corpses and 20 lives). Considering his evil mind with the grave attitude, I could never quote the source words nor translate it, hence could only quote Dr. Chang's comment "made joke on her dead body", wishing that he did not mean to do it. Unfortunately, the real communication in the remote ROC frontline was just this way during the military governing period of the martial law in 1980s, and actually he is not alone, none of the officers who killed the victims has shown a remorse or apologized for the last 35 years either, as you can read now from 173 comments of this post you deleted for example, nor in their formal interviews on the Control Yuan report - not even one single word of sorry or regret is expressed throughout the 829 pages, but framing the refugees as either departing from the tip of Xiamen to sail around the coast, shooting at a commander with a handgun, carrying communist spies who swam away with life jackets against the rising tide upon landing inside the bay? None of these fraudulent claims make sense for anybody familiar with local geography, meteorology, navigation and intelligence... Please note that I have never rendered an analysis nor a personal opinion in the article, but only recorded the facts of what happened in connection with the developing history line. The "negative inferences" were driven by their own behaviors and statements to be against themself, and the Wikipedians are mostly knowledgeable intellectuals, not lack of acknowledgement as you presume - only a political warfare professional could assume the enemy that way by definition in order to proceed the manipulation tactics on purpose. As for the module of hailing a convicted officer of serial murders and multiple perjuries as a professional hero on the public media, then further elected among veterans as the host of the annual event for the entire division, while this case is on the spot under legal investigation - sound familiar in the history? The fundamental ideology issue remains infected in the bones of ROC military culture till today - that is where the "scandalous" lies.

Secondly, you are forging the empty username accusation for no reason, "Chen Shui-bian" was the former Taiwanese president and the leader of Democratic Progressive Party in 2000s, who was not a member of 158 Division, nor in its veteran groups. His name has never appeared in the edit history of this article, nor in the two reference notes content which you try to delete twice. It is impossible that his account is relating to these threads, or anybody can fake his identity in FB without raising a national security concern - your accusation comes from nowhere but render suspicious by complicating this legal case in history with the current political dispute in a hidden agenda of misleading to an irrelevant politician. As for the "Original Research"? What makes you think I am able to imagine the details about the pregnant, the senior lady, the ammunition consumption and the specific officers' conduct? They are all posted in the second page "Framing the Conscription Reservist Officer" but have been limiting from the public viewers later by the "Select audience" settings under the tremendous outsiders' pressure. I was not aware of the display difference - thanks to your reminder, so here are the hidden texts as you insist to request:

"張敦智: 當年的據點的人員配置：XXX擔任30機槍射手，其他三位分別為據點通訊兵、3.5吋火箭兵、60迫砲副砲手，他們都在離第一線越南漁船300至500公尺的位置。三七事件發生當下，XXX奉命針對下船人員先進行警告射擊（打了20發），後來人員陸續下船上岸後，警告無效後才打完據點內六條30機槍彈帶。3.5吋火箭兵在此次打了4發，離海岸500公尺的60迫砲陣地當天共打了21發。（以上為小弟當天詢問XXX聚會的據點同儕）

(Chang: the mission assignment of the fort was: XXX as the .30 M60 machine gunner, the other three including one signal technician, one 3.5-in bazooka operator, and one .60 mortar.60 Mortar operator. They were in the frontline position 300--500 meters far from the Vietnamese fishing boat. XXX was ordered to fire (20) warning shots, but ineffective as they disembarked onshore, so they fired over all 6 chains of .30 machine gun shots, and the 3.5-inch bazooka operator fired 4 shots. The M30 mortar, 60 mortar position, 500 meters offshore totally fired 21 shots that day. (The above are what I inquired from XXX's fort colleagues on the reunion day))

張敦智: 今晚透過XXX引介以電話連絡到當年三七事件所屬連隊的彈藥士，訪談他本人關於當年三七事件過後所使用的彈藥申請數量。雖然已過了30多年他本人還印象深刻。經過他本人的回憶，跟小弟在電話告知的彈藥數量為……30機槍子彈320發、五七步槍子彈162發、60迫砲彈藥21發、3.5吋火箭筒6發（兩發因受潮射擊後未爆）、45手槍子彈36發、手榴彈2顆（2顆因受潮投後未爆）。……還好這位基層連隊彈藥士有寫日記的習慣，因而留下了這些資料。

(Chang: I contact the Company Ammunition Specialist in the March 7 Incident on phone through XXX's introduction tonight and interview him about the applied ammunition amounts after the incident. He remembers them clearly even after 30 years. He recalls that: 320 .30 machine gun shots, 162 T57 rifle shots, 21 60 mortar shells, 6 3.5-inch bazooka shells (2 of them wet not working), 36 M1911 pistol shots, 2 hand grenades (not detonated) - Thanks to the CAS who used to write diaries, hence maintained these data)

張敦智: 昨晚透過XXX，連絡到當年三七事件發生當下手持四五手槍擔任補槍的醫務兵，該名醫務兵在確認中槍者脈搏還跳動時不敢開槍而被連長訓斥。最終由連長把三名生還的傷者直接爆頭送西，三名中有一名孕婦，孕婦在傷重之際，被爆頭前說英文請求活命……。這幾句英文這名就讀復健系的醫務兵，30多年後都還清楚記得，該名孕婦被爆頭前的最終遺言……help me, help my baby. my baby seven months.

(Chang: I contacted the medic who was instructed to follow up to fire the .45 handgun shots in the March 7 Incident through XXX last night. He verified that the wounded still having the pulse and couldn't fire upon, then was scolded by the company commander, who finally shot all the three survivors on the head. one of them is pregnant with the severe wound, and spoke in English, which is still clearly remembered by the medic in the rehabilitation study background after over 30 years: "…help me, help my baby. my baby seven months.")

張敦智: 昨晚與他在電話中閒聊，我也曾懷疑，為何一個小兵能拿到45手槍。他說……上級長官把手槍上膛後拿給他，因船艙內較狹窄長槍較無用處，所以告知醫務兵若還有生命跡象者，直接就爆頭處理，所以才能拿到45手槍。他因不敢開槍動手，最終由連長幹掉，該醫務兵因抗拒開槍，差點就被以抗命罪論處。

(Chang: I talked with him on phone last night. I also doubt how could a soldier receiving a .45 handgun. He said: a superior officer handed him the loaded pistol, because the rifle is less useful inside the narrow boat cabin, then told this medic to shoot anybody with living signs straight on the head. He dared not to shoot, so finally the company commander took over. The medic failing to shoot was almost charged by the criminal offense of resisting a direct order.)

張敦智: 若今晚連絡順利，當年持五七步槍（上刺刀）進入沙灘負責警戒，及奉命對逃跑的越南船民開槍xx一兵步槍兵。當年xx因拒絕執行開槍命令，被旅長持45手槍握把敲擊鋼盔警告，旅長嗆xx……若不再開槍將以敵前抗命死罪論處法辦。……隨即xx開槍亂打一通，還好都沒打到越南船民。

(Chang: If corresponding fluently tonight: the infantryman XX who held a T57 rifle (with bayonet) entered the beach in guard and was ordered to shoot at the fleeing Vietnamese refugees, was knocked on the helmet by the brigade commander with his .45 handgun because of rejecting to execute the shooting order, the commander scold... XX will be court-martialed for resisting a direct order in the frontline... then XX shot elsewhere in rampage, luckily without hurting the refugees.)

張敦智: 劉文孝, 當年同船中唯一的孕婦被連長用45手槍爆頭後，該營某作戰訓練的軍官幕僚還開玩笑說，要把孕婦遺體開膛破肚看看，如此冷血惡質非一語所能概括。

(Change: After the only pregnant in the boat being shot on head by the company commander, a G3 staff officer still made joke saying to cut her belly open to see, such cold blood cannot be described by words.)

江東霖: 聽158軍友提過，這位是該營作戰官

(Jiang: The 158D veterans mentioned that it was the Battalion Operation Officer.)

江東霖: 沒有，但有158弟兄在餐聚聽過該營作戰官對此事件完全無懊悔之意。

(Jiang: No, yet the 158D colleague hears in the reunion meal that the BOO has no remorse about this incident at all.)

張敦智: 最後一位被處決的是一位躲在船艙被抓出來近70餘歲的女長者，當天被抓出來時雙手握6根金條及一包貴重行囊，要交給軍方人員請求活命。最後這位老人被就地槍決後，金條等貴重物品不知去向，小弟近年也透過學術網絡查閱三七事件處理報告書中也未提到有繳獲這些貴重物品。重點是6根金條，及行囊內數疊百元美鈔、百圓港幣，當時在場的官兵都有看到，但這些東西在事後消失，至今仍下落不明。……該醫務兵退伍前聽說，這批東西最後是放在烈嶼的旅部。

(Chang: The last executed was a senior lady in her 70s that day, who hold 6 gold bars and a bag of precious items begging the military for mercy, which were all disappeared after she was eventually executed. I checked the March 7 Incident Report through the academic network in recent years, which did not mention about these confiscated items - the point is that the officers and soldiers at scene have all seen 6 gold bars, stacks of hundred-dollar U.S. bills and Hong Kong notes, but they disappeared afterwards till now...This medic heard by the end of conscription service that these items were in the RHQ.)

劉文孝: 我訪問的是小龍女的父親(當時在本師任職，但在台灣受訓，所以未受懲處)，他聽同事說一個老太太還有一個小孩是第二天天亮後上船隻殘骸搜索時才發現的，都用手槍格斃，但沒提到財物。

(Liu: I interviewed the girl's father (working in the division but taking a training in Taiwan then, therefore not involved in the penalties). He heard from the colleague that a senior lady and a child was found while searching the boat wreckage next morning, and both were executed by handgun, but did not mention about the money.)

邱隨供: 時代的大悲劇不只這樁，71年2(3?)月春霧中我師在四維海邊，用戰車炮擊毀一艘漁船，據說船上都是穿便服舉雙手說要投奔自由有10多人，沒活口。

(Chiu: The tragedy is not just this one, my division shot a fishing boat in the spring mist with tank gun near Si-wei port coast in February (March?) 1982. It was heard more than 10 people in casual clothes had raised hands to demand the asylum; no one survived.)

"謝宇威: 我1991住在這據點快半年，早我1年多當兵的學長說，剛移防至此據點時，每晚聽見女人與小孩的哭聲，並且許多人都有身體潰爛的現象，我們連上的輔導長也親自向我證實，輔導長說：「我是基督徒，我不相信世上有鬼，但是我也確實聽見了女人與小孩的哭聲」，那時我們都被蒙在鼓裡，不知幾年前就在自家碉堡發生了「東岡事件」^。

(Hsie: I stationed in this fort for almost half a year in 1991, the senior soldier 1-year earlier than me said that he heard the crying women and children, upon moving in the post, and many soldier's bodies got festered. The political officer of our company confirmed to me in person: "I am a Christian, hence don't believe there are ghosts in the world, but I indeed heard the crying of women and children." We were kept in the dark at the time, unaware that THE 'Donggang Incident' had occurred at our fort several years ago.)"

The above information has also been organized into the following posts for the magazine reference, and may be concluded in a book publication later:

• Ammunition consumption of the Donggang Incident
  
• Unrevealed Statement of the machine gunner in the Donggang Incident
  
• Witnesses and evidence available
  
• Who call it the military duty
  

Nevertheless, in respect to the author's decision as we notice the display difference now, the senior lady part with the data being hidden will be removed for now waiting for the book publication in the future. Yet this does not consist of the reason for mass deletions of 9013 characters yesterday, whereas the preceding Dadan tank attack comment sinking the surrendered fishing boat (which directly impacted the SOP of the following case), and the aftershock of the shooting the boat of 4 fishermen approaching the massacre sit to check what happened to assure all lips sealed next day, are both covered up. Even the unsolved death of the G2 Intelligence Section leader, Lieutenant-colonel Xu Lai, is completely wiped out in this case? Then how to explain to his wife and the children being denied the pension nor any compensation afterwards and lost her eyes living in poverty for the rest of her life later. Not to mention that the picture of the Minister of National Defense taken with the political warfare officer writer of the critical script story in the official ceremony, which is publicized by the Military Broadcast Station's FB account for the general public is also deleted - what is to hide?

Talking about the "reliability", according to the Control Yuan report: two commanders at the first scene claim never shot anybody now; the personnel affairs (G1) record from the MND shows on page 361 that General Chao Wan-fu has never been the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the ROC Armed Forces, but stayed in the position of Deputy Chief Commander of the ROC Army till his retirement, which is applied as a proof in comparison to the other publication references as wrong - this surely would change the ROC history by all means, including the official records and documents in various departments, even that his graveyard note in the prestigious military cemetery would need to be updated to reflect this sudden "career change". Unfortunately, MND still seals the information of the corpses for good, hence the most basic information such as the gender, age and the amount of victims remain unknown - ranged from 7 to 23 refugees as per the soldiers' observation, but missing the scientific data to support the claims, hence only "estimated" as 20 in the conclusion; yet now the reburial is advocated but with still no autopsy examination in agenda, which would actually just create another cover-up story on the fourth scene... Mickie-Mickie (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Holy wall of text batman! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup Efforts (March 2023)

There is a lot of great information in this article, but it is extremely difficult to understand. I am working on grammar and readability top to bottom. I have no expertise on the subject matter nor do I read Chinese, so I may not correctly understand the original intent of some sections. If you disagree with my rephrasing, please do not simply revert the edits; instead, please improve the specific phrase(s) to which you object. Thanking you in advance, Last1in (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the pre-existing Background section (see below) is utterly impenetrable. However, it does not appear to have anything whatsoever to do with the subject of this article, the Lieyu massacre itself. As far as I can tell, it is somehow linking the KDC and MDC (the latter of is not even mentioned elsewhere in this article) with nuclear research/plans/weapons. I will happily restore it if someone, anyone, can tell me what it means, and also explain why it belongs in this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good morning, Thank you for the edits to improve the article, though I have no right to speak for the 158D veterans nor the Anonymous. The last mass deletion should be present for the following reasons:

  1) This paragraph in the Background section introduces and directly links to the third paragraph of the 240mm tactical deployment on the next "Massacre" section, and later further developed into the fifth paragraph on the last "Aftermath" section on the situation of Deputy Director Chang Hsien-yi and the confrontation of Direct Dean with General Hau pushing for the final resolution. Without the explanation in the first introduction in advance, the other two paragraphs would become abrupt, groundless and uncomprehensive for the those readers who were there 35 years ago - except only the servicemen familiar with the era background knew what was going on then.

  2) The 240mm Black Dragon company, also known as the "240mm Donggang Company" was positioned right beside the Dashanding Hill, in front of two heavy/light artillery battalions, which was the critical concern why the landing spot of the foreign boat on the beneath beach turned so sensitive and troubled by the over-reacting responses, causing the highest amount of civilian execution in one single incident in the ROC history after 1949, and why MND always covered up any information all the way, considering that the 240mm positions were relocated eventually with its maneuver has turned obsolete and inadequate for the modern warfare, but remain functional and drilled for each visiting president and tourist groups for propaganda purpose till today.

  3) MDC is the smaller-scaled copy of KDC in the ROC Two-horn frontline strategy but lower in rank then, and practiced the same war zone administration till the end of era. Most KDC commander were also the MDC commanders earlier, and would be promoted as the following Army Commander in Chief position afterwards in the ROC Army tradition - same as General Zhao that he has been both commander positions and already promoted to the highest general rank, but only needed some war merits to assure the next nomination as the general chief of ROC Army. Being the long-term subordinate office of General Hau, and both the faithful followers of the Chiang Kai-shek's ideology to return China by force, though which has been technically impossible without the nuclear weapon application, after PRC had developed the nuclear power in the mainland in 1960s.

  With the full text in presence, the maltreatment against the foreign refugees and the so-called "Bandit people" attitude of Zhao and other military personnel who shared the same KMT's One-China philosophy are hence self-explanatory under such the strategy background. It was a part of the history Mickie-Mickie (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits for article improvement, but some minor mis-interpretation occurred within the rephrasing which caused the fact misunderstanding hence require correction, such as the ROC Army action part: the Army command is actually never an independent headquarter since the Sun Li-jen persecution by Chiang Ching-kuo in 1955 - the referred Executive Yuan orders were transferred through Ministry of National Defense in name, but in fact executed by the General Staff Headquarter to the KDC on the army group level, and the Army HQ only acted as the administrative transmission and the logistic supply role. During the warlord era and the civilian-nominated ministers of national defense in office, the orders came directly from the Chief of General Staff on behalf of the President Chiang himself; the military power only shifts to the MND after Hau and other generals assumed the minister position, hence the Army HQ did not really have a say in this case. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

(pasted as nowiki) Both KDC and MDC (Matsu Defense Command) had guarded the nuclear cannon strike plans targeting neighboring regions during the Cold War, including the strategic Xiamen City even though the effective radius actually covers the ROC's own stationed Dadan and Erdan islands too.<ref name="AH">{{Cite book|title=中美關係 (九) 忠勤檔案 |trans-title=ROC-US Relation, Part IX: Zhong-Chin Dossier |volume=63 |chapter=Collection of President Chiang Ching-kuo |url=https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw |author=ROC Office of the President |date=1 May 1958 |access-date=2 February 2021 |work=Declassified Hua-dzong-ji-one #10110057140, 1 August 2002 |via=Academia Historica, Digital Collection: 005-010100-00063-001 |language=zh-TW |location=Taipei}}</ref> It is alleged that a previous nuclear weapons program undertaken since 1967 was forced to stop in 1977 under the pressure of United States and [[International Atomic Energy Agency|IAEA]], but followed by another hidden agenda, a minimized nuclear test succeeded recently at the Jioupeng military field in [[Pingtung County|Pingtung]] in 1986 after nearly 20 years of research and simulation testing, which was recorded on the US [[Reconnaissance satellite|satellite]] image and questioned later by the director of [[American Institute in Taiwan]], David Dean, in 1988 according to General Hau's Diary.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://udn.com/news/story/9492/1515007|title=電文解密{{nbsp}}... 1970年代 美阻我兩波核武發展|trans-title=Telegram Decryption{{nbsp}}... US Blocked 2 Tides of Nuclear Weapon Development in 1970s|access-date=13 May 2021 |author=Chen Wei-ting |date=21 February 2016 |publisher=United Daily News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160506011809/http://udn.com/news/story/9492/1515007|archive-date=6 May 2016|language=zh-TW}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSWgacjFblg|title=【台灣演義】台灣核子秘辛 |trans-title=The Nuclear Secret in Taiwan History |access-date=13 May 2021 |author=|date=20 June 2016 |publisher=[[Formosa Television]]|language=zh-TW}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4OPvxllEQ |title=台核武機密保衛戰..揭新竹計畫若成功台灣國防能力就不一樣？|trans-title=The Defense War of Taiwan's Nuclear Weapons Secret{{nbsp}}... Once Hsinchu Project Succeeded, Would Taiwan's National Defense Capability Be Different? |access-date=13 May 2021 |author1=呂捷|author2=張齡予|date=17 January 2021|publisher=[[SET News]]|language=zh-TW}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV9OTMn-Xhs |title=最後一秒老美帶走「已完成的8顆核彈」 失敗新竹計劃讓老蔣含恨 |trans-title=Americans Took Away "8 Completed Nuclear Bombs"; Failed Hsinchu Project Left Chiang Sr. in Pity |access-date=13 May 2021 |author1=馬西屏 |author2=劉燦榮 |date=23 December 2016 |publisher=Crucial Time, [[Eastern Broadcasting Company]] |language=zh-hant}}</ref>

I also just copy edited the article, focusing on content clarity and article structure. My rewordings are in the interest of readability for a general audience. As such, if any information has been distorted, feel free to improve or correct (but not revert) them. Thanks! Jayowyn (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)