Talk:Northern Expedition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wuhan Incident?

This article refers to the split between the KMT and the CPC as the Wuhan Incident, but according to that article the Wuhan Incident happened in 1967, some forty years after the rupture between the KMT and the CPC! Might there have been two Wuhan incidents? I cannot find any web evidence to support this.

The article Wang Jingwei refers to a similar-sounding split by the name Ninghan Separation. Could this be the name that the original author intended when the "Wuhan Incident" was inserted into this article? I am no Chinese history buff, so I do not know, and I cannot find any reliable web references to bolster this theory either. Can any others validate one theory or the other? Mmccalpin 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this looks like the 1927 incident was the April 12 Incident. I'm gonna edit the relevant info accordingly. Ling.Nut 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Request consensus discussion on addition of flag

Flag of the National Revolutionary Army

Discussion is welcome.Arilang1234 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Move this page back!

The Northern Expedition almost always refer to the KMT's expedition in English. Even the Chinese wiki refers to this one and leaves the other Northern Expeditions for a disambig page.--Countakeshi (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and moved back from "Northern Expedition (1926–1928)" to "Northern Expedition". Northern Expedition usually refers to this one and disambigution by year is unnecessary, especially when "Northern Expedition" was just redirecting to here and the introduction already makes note of and links to less well-known "Northern Expeditions". —Lowellian (reply) 10:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist rapprochement Section

Section 5, "Nationalist rapprochement," is difficult to understand. I think it should be revised. Barjeconiah (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagarism?

I happened to notice a marked similarity (i.e. exact match) between this cite and [[1]] for the sections: First Expedition, Second Expedition, and Third Expedition. Is there a way to know whether this information was copied from history.cultrual-china.com or vice versa? Barjeconiah (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Causality

The number of causality in the info box is absent.Please anyone add or dear admin add this.17:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Ovsek (talk)

number of troops?

It says on this page that there was an army of 100,000. In a textbook talking about the Northern Expedition, it says there was 90,000. What was the source for the 100,000? Should it be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.125.120 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky and Stalin

"The Northern Expedition became a point of contention over foreign policy by Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. Stalin followed an opportunist policy, ignoring communist ideology. He told the CCP to stop whining about the lower classes and follow the KMT's orders. Stalin believed that the KMT bourgeoisie would defeat the western imperialists in China and complete the revolution. Trotsky wanted the Communist party to complete an orthodox proletarian revolution and opposed the KMT. Stalin funded the KMT during the expedition.[6] Stalin countered Trotskyist criticism by making a secret speech in which he said that Chiang's right wing Kuomintang were the only ones capable of defeating the imperialists, that Chiang Kai-shek had funding from the rich merchants, and that his forces were to be utilized until squeezed for all usefulness like a lemon before being discarded. However, Chiang quickly reversed the tables in the Shanghai massacre of 1927 by massacring the Communist party in Shanghai midway in the Northern Expedition.[7][8]"

Little biased, aren't we? 92.237.185.36 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You might read Harold Isaacs' Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution. It may or may not lead you to re-think the question of bias. Terry J. Carter (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be a little one-sided, but I think it a fairly objective overview, all in all. Liangjianwu (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding Chinese names?

Hey RGloucester, how is it going. Thanks for correcting some of my errors/grammar; I was wondering if it would help to add the Chinese names over many of these relatively obscure figures (like adding "(周凤岐)" next to Chou Feng-ch'i, for instance), since many of the older sources use Wade-Giles spelling exclusively which makes it a little more difficult to follow when I trying to compare accounts from Chinese sources. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I favour using pinyin in all cases, unless it is very clear that someone is only ever referred to by the Wade-Giles. If disambiguation is required, it seems to make sense to put the Chinese characters next to someone's name, especially if they have no article. I've put in "Zhou Fengqi" for that fellow's name. Converting from Wade-Giles/Postal to Pinyin was actually the most annoying part of reading these older sources...some of the strange place name romanisations, if you Googled them, would not even provide any results. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I'll work on those spelling conversions when applicable. Alex Shih (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northern Expedition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I will take this one, comments to follow over next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Zawed. I'll keep this page on my watchlist. Pinging RGloucester as well, the main contributor for this article. Alex Shih (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I've got the page watched. Thanks for doing this review. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Initial stuff

• To the best of my understanding RE image licencing, the various image tags check out OK except for "Chiang Kai-shek's departure from Canton.jpg". While I think the image itself is likely to be public domain, the source information says it is from the Jacobs book which is published in 1981.

I scanned the picture from that book, but it is originally from China: The Roots of Madness, which is in the public domain. The source is indicated in the book. I suppose I can reupload a screenshot from the film itself, if that is preferable, but I don't necessarily understand why it is necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Admittedly image licencing is not my strong point, but I suspect the fact that the source is a relatively recent publication (in terms of copyright duration) there could be issues should this article go for a review for FA. Zawed (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I will simply upload a new version China: The Roots of Madness. RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Dupe links: there are quite a few, mainly city names and provinces but also some individuals eg Chiang and Zhang Xueliang. For some of the less well known individuals it may be OK even the second link is quite a distance from the first. In relation to Zhang Xueliang, I would mention his relationship to Zhang Zuolin when he is first mentioned in the "Internal conflict among the nationalists (April–August 1927)" section.

Should be mostly fixed. RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Dab links: one, but this is in the context of other uses so that is OK
• External links check out OK

More comments to follow. This is a pretty big article so it will definitely take several days to work my way through it. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Prelude

• "The Kuomintang, based in Guangzhou": add the bracketed abbreviation after first mention as you have done for the CPC and NRA.

The bracketed indication of the abbreviation is already present in the lead. Should it occur twice? RGloucester — ☎ 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I think once for lead, and then again on first mention in article body. This seems to be how its done in the articles I have seen. Zawed (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that's done. RGloucester — ☎ 16:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• "co-founder of the Kuomintang": use abbreviation KMT here.

Done

• "Amidst this backdrop, Chiang, who had emerged as a successor to Sun Yat-sen...": this repeats to a certain extent the last sentence of the previous paragraph. Perhaps you mean "confirmed as Sun Yat-sen's successor..."?

Well, he had not yet been confirmed at that time...other people were still scheming, which is partly why he launched the coup. I've changed the sentence to: "Amidst this backdrop, Chiang, who had been vying for the position of KMT leader, began to consolidate power in preparation for an expedition against the northern warlords".

Looks good. Zawed (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• "from the Guangzhou administration and its military.": suggest moving this to follow "bloodless purge" earlier in the sentence, I think it will flow better.

Done.

• " hostile to the Kuomintang government...": rephrase to " hostile to the KMT government"

Done.

• "National Pacification Army"": why the quote marks? I also suggest linking it, an article may be created in the future?

The inverted commas are meant to indicate that that's a literal translation of the Chinese name, as some sources use a direct transliteration instead. I've moved the indication of the various transliterations to this spot. RGloucester — ☎ 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Against Wu Peifu (July–September 1926)

• "the nationalist government": I suspect you used this terminology to avoid repeating KMT in the same sentence but I fear it may lead some readers to believe it is different from the KMT.

The 'nationalist' terminology is introduced in the first sentence in the lead...whilst I understand your concern, I also think it is important that the reader grasps its usage, as it is common in discourse when one reads about this subject. Do you have a suggestion? RGloucester — ☎ 14:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Will go with your approach, I may be overthinking it. Zawed (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Finished the above section, more to follow. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Against Sun Chuanfang (September 1926–February 1927)

• "The end of strike opened...": rephrase to "This opened..." It seems clear to me the two events are related so probably no need to be specific.

Done.

• "Dissatisfaction in Zhejiang with the rule of outsider Sun...": what made him an outsider?

He was from a different province...during this time period, people from outside one's province were considered foreign...I've tried to clarify.

• "former headquarters.[46][39][47]": cite 39 is out of order.

Fixed.

• "In the first days of November...": rephrase to "In early November..."

Done.

• Delete time from "province within a few days time."

Done.

• "command of general Bai Chongxi": If general is being used in a title sense, it should be capitalised. Also, is there a specific rank to link to here? Maybe clarify that he was an NRA general?

I've simply removed 'general', as its unnecessary, and a general description rather than a title.

• "catastrophic defeat for Sun's forces.[58][9]": reorder refs

I'm afraid I don't have the Jowett book available. I know the Jordan reference, as I added that, but it seems someone else added Jowett here. I think it must be @Applodion:, so I'll ping him. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The Jowett book in question basically includes a condensed version of the events; in this case, the additional reference is not really needed. I have removed it. Applodion (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• No link for Meng Ch’ao-yüeh?

Done.

Shanghai–Nanjing offensive (February–April 1927)

• "Bai's forces marched into Shanghai victorious.[65][62][9]": reorder refs

Done

• "entering the city with no resistance.[62][60][67]": as above

Done.

• "The nationalist government had moved from Guangzhou": I'm a little confused by this phrase/link used here because I read it initially as the entire nationalist government but the link is to a specific branch of that government.

The entire government moved from Guangzhou to Wuhan. Then, after Chiang ordered a purge of communists in Shanghai, he established his own rival government in Nanjing, whilst Wuhan stayed in place. At the time being referred to here, the Wuhan government was the only KMT government, as it's before the split. The rival Nanjing government had not yet been formed.

• "...on 3 April, by the 11th,...": from a style point of view I find this phrase a little jarring. I suggest moving "by the 11th" to the end of the sentence and reciting the date in full i.e. 11 April.

Done.

Internal conflict among the nationalists (April–August 1927)

• "over the left-wing faction of the KMT.": suggest "over its left-wing faction." This avoids repeating the KMT (even if the first usage is its full name).

Done.

• "nationalist government in Wuhan": this is a dupe link, used late in the previous section (see my comment above, may be rendered moot depending on how you deal with it)

Done.

• "between the nationalists and the communists.[76][9]": reorder refs

Fixed.

• "but put that plan on hold following Wang Jingwei's return from Europe.": Should clarify here that he was the leader of the Wuhan Government rather than later as it is at present.

The Wuhan government invited him to back from exile to lead the government...in other words, he was not involved in the initial decision making, as he had not yet taken up the position of leader. I've tried to clarify this.

• "Feng Yuxiang and his Guominjun...": I realise this is not the first mention of the Guominjun, but is there an English translation of it to be added to first mention?

'Guominjun' is not normally translated, because the translations are potentially confusing. Literally, it'd be something like 'National Army' or 'Nationalist Army'...but it is of course not the KMT army, and was originally not affiliated with the KMT...hence why it is left untranslated.

• "warlord power base in Shandong.[82][80]": reorder refs

Done.

• "Zhang Xueliang to withdraw his north" the "withdraw his" is used twice in close succession, is it possible to rephrase to avoid this?

Done.

• "Feng Yuxiang streamed east": I think it should be "Guominjun moved east"

Done.

• "By the 24th...": better state (for avoidance of doubt) 24 July

Done.

• "Wang Jingwei demanded that Chiang resign from his post of commander-in-chief...": this is confusing since earlier in this section Tang was identified as Chia'ng's replacement as c-in-c.

I tried to clarify this at the point where Tang was introduced, writing that he was appointed c-in-c of the Wuhan army specifically, rather than as 'Chiang's replacement'.

That's all for now, I will keep working through this over the next few days. I've been making the odd tweak to the text as I went through where I thought it was straightforward, you may want to check these in case I inadvertently changed any meanings. Zawed (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Without Chiang Kai-shek (August 1927–January 1928)

• including White Russian units,...": at the risk of going off on a tangent, it may warrant an explanation why these guys were involved. Effectively they were mercenaries weren't they?

They were indeed mercenaries...basically remnants of the Russian civil war white forces that had been roaming around Manchuria after their defeat in the Russian Far East, employed by the Beiyang side. I've added the 'mercenary' clarification. Their history is actually interesting, and detailed stuff has been written about them, but I don't think it belongs in this article.

• "...on the 12th of that month.": Probably not important when exactly he left, so you could just say "shortly afterwards."

Done.

• "With Tang dealt with, the push north resumed, reaching Bengbu by 9 November. Continuing north, the NRA and Feng Yuxiang's Guominjun moved toward Xuzhou.": Two quite short sentences here, both using north. Perhaps combine and rephrase so north only mentioned once.

Done.

• "NRA and Guominjun forces, who took": which took

Done.

• "...on 11 December.[106][102]": reorder refs

Done.

Regrouping and Jinan incident (January–May 1928)

• "...to Japanese general Hikosuke Fukuda...": Japanese used three times in one sentence, consider rephrasing. I suggest "to the local commander of the Kwangtung Army, Hikosuke Fukuda."

Done.

Final offensive and capture of Beijing (May–December 1928)

• No link for Chu Yupu?

Done, though he's linked much earlier, I think a second link makes sense.

• Ah, I see those White Russians again, but described as mercenaries here.

Indeed.

Aftermath

• The 2nd paragraph has a couple of cites out of order

Should be fixed.

References

• Cites [2],[64] and [129] are presented with brackets

Fixed.

• A few cites, e.g. [16], are to page ranges rather than a single page but use p. as opposed to pp.

Fixed.

• Cite [71] uses pp. when p. should be used

Fixed.

• Eastman listed in the Bibliography but doesn't seem to be cited at all. Ditto Koga, Lary, Wang

Presumably leftover from an earlier version of the article...I've moved them to further reading to avoid removing them altogether.

@RGloucester: yeah, I meant to suggest that. Zawed (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Brandt isn't listed in alphabetical order and lacks an OCLC number

Where do I find the OCLC number? I can't seem to find it, though I can find the ISBN of the reprint...

Never mind, I found it.

• Boorman et al lacks publisher's location as does Chiang, Gao, Hsi-Sheng, Jordan, and Wilbur & How

Done.

• Some inconsistent presentation of ISBN numbers due to absence of hyphen - I would remove all the hyphens for sake of consistency.

Done.

One final comment is that I notice throughout the article the abbreviated and full terms for the NRA and NPA, and to a lesser extent the KMT, are used interchangeably. The consistency of presentation could be improved.

Fixed.

Conclusion

Overall, this is an impressive article that deals with a complex and complicated subject (the map of the Routes of the Northern Expedition, with the various cliques, is extremely useful). A tremendous amount of work has obviously gone into it by the editors involved, and you all should be commended for your efforts. I hope it hasn't been/won't be too onerous dealing with my feedback (I do tend to review GA articles to an overly detailed standard). I also apologise for the length of time it has taken to complete this review. Zawed (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thoughtful review. On the contrary, I'm happy to spend time improving an article on such an important historical subject, which up until now was not done justice on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: apologies for the multiple pings, but with the length of the review I thought the pings would make it easier for you to locate my replies to certain of your comments above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Happy with the article and consider it to meet the standard required for GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)