# Talk:National Pacification Army

@Roniius: Good work here! I have a few notes on various improvements that could be made.

More context in the background would be good. Set the stage: what was the political situation in China? How did that tie into the Warlord Era?
Wikilink, and perhaps give a brief explanation, as to what the Zhili clicque was.
Downfall section is a bit informal
Command section should either be expanded, or made a subsection of another part
" The Kuomintang, the Soviet Union, and Communism, who were all linked" seems out of place where it is?
Kuomintang section shouldn't consist entirely of a subsection. Remove the subsection, rename the main section, or expand
The lead needs expanding. A lead should summarize the article, and ideally present not need citations, as all info would already exist with a citation in the body
Please ping me in replies, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I have attempted to address all of these problems. Roniius (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Roniius, Nicely done! I believe this is now B status. I would say this is probably ready to take to Good Article status too. I suggest you carefully read the WP:GA page and its subpages (ensuring that you know the criteria well), and then nominate the article. It will take a few weeks to a few months for a reviewer to pickup the article. I would review it, but I'm afraid that only editors that haven't significantly edited the page may review it. Once the review starts, the reviewer will give feedback on what needs improving. You'll have about a week or so to implement the feedback and work with the reviewer. Unless a serious issue is found, the review will usually pass, but you do need to cooperate with the reviewer. While you wait for review, work on polishing the article up, especially prose and grammar. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh and if possible, finding another quality source would be good. You rely pretty heavily on the one source, so finding another good book would allow for another perspective. If a book can't be found, you might also be able to find a scholarly article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I've noticed that the name of this article has been changed from Anguojun to National Pacification Army. The reason for this was that you believed that more RS used National Pacification Army as a name. However, the abbreviation of NPA can be misunderstood as the abbreviation for the National Protection Army, which fought in the National Protection War (Surprisingly, it is mentioned in [Zhongguo jun yong chao piao shi lüe] p. 135 that Dr. Sun Yat-sen actually changed the National Protection Army's name to National Pacification Army). Additionally, most RS I have used and seen have used either Anguojun or Ankuochun, with Ankuochun being more common in the older ones. These sources commonly mention its translation into English, but some present alternative translations such as National Peace Army. When searching up National Protection Army on Google Books, there are only 5 results on the first page that actually refer to this army, and mentions of it are scattered in the following pages. However, upon searching for Ankuochun, results regarding the Chinese army go up to the 2nd page. A search for "National Pacification Army" (quotation marks included) yields 3 results on JSTOR, 2 of which are from books I use as sources in this article that use the Chinese name. However, a search for Ankuochun yields 41 results.
As a side note, I would also choose to use the Pinyin version of the name due to WP:PINYIN, but it does say to go with WP:COMMONNAME if recent RS use other spellings, which I believe they might. Roniius (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I based the move on Google Ngrams, and on definitive high-quality sources, such as Jordan's Northern Expedition and Bonavia's China's warlords, which use 'National Pacification Army'. I am aware of the older army that you refer to, but this is not commonly referred to as the 'National Pacification Army' (or NPA) in RS, whereas this one is commonly referred to as such. In looking at Google Ngrams, it was clear that Ankuochun has been the default transliteration, and that this was somewhat frozen in time, despite the move to pinyin in other cases (similar to Kuomintang, I expect). Anguojun is an exceedingly rare name for this entity in RS, and thus inappropriate, as far as I'm concerned. In any case, English names are preferred where they exist and are commonly used, and given the choice between a rare, but modern tranliteration, a common, but old transliteration, and the common English name in academic works, I think the English name clearly wins out. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree here. Anjuojun is not very self explanatory, and somewhat hard to understand. But the doublespeak meaning of "National Pacification Army" is immediately apparent to our English readers, and makes it clear that it is an armed force. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Jordan's Northern Expedition uses Ankuochün. Jowell's China’s Wars also uses the Wade-Giles version. Sources at the time it was active (e.g. The Week in China (1927), Bulletin of International News (vol. 4 p. 199), The North American Review (vol. 228 p. 144), The Spectator (vol. 139 p. 540), The China Monthly Review (vol. 45 p. 46), The Illustrated London News (vol. 82 p. 230), Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (p. 659), Japan: Overseas Travel Magazine (vol. 16 p. 23), Soviet Union Review (vol. 5-7, p. 98), Current History and Forum (vol. 27, p. 450)). The use of National Pacification Army may also be too military-focused, as although the Anguojun/Ankuochun was mostly a military alliance, there was a political aspect to it and it functioned as a government and a military state (some sources, especially Chinese, call this the Anguojun Government, the Peking Government, or the Ankuochun Regime) and tried to make itself look like a legitimate one through the use of propaganda. This is contrasted with organizations such as the Kuomintang, in which their military was the National Revolutionary Army. However, the Anguojun and the state itself were not as separate as with the KMT and the NRA. Foreign policy reports at the time refer to it as a government rather than an army (Political Handbook of the World: Parliaments, Parties and Press (1928) refers to it as Ankuochun (Peking Government)). The US War Department referred to it as either the Ankuochun or the Northern Group here, Soviet foreign policy documents also refer to it as the Ankuochun, and so do British parliamentary debates (vol. 207 p. lxxii, 1927). Other sources that primarily use Ankuochun are Witold Rodziński's A History of China, Roy's Revolution and Counterrevolution in China, Kotenev's New Lamps for Old, Xu's Essays on the Manchurian Problem, Knopes' Chinese students, the Kuomintang, and the Chang Tso-lin.
Acording to Google Ngrams for Google Books, Usage of Ankuochun was at its peak in 1931, where it was used in 0.0000013054% of sources, while National Pacification Army was used in only 0.0000000344% of the sources at the time (By plotting percentage over time, usage of National Pacification Army roughly stayed there in the early 1930s in a plateau, until its use dropped off in 1933. National Pacification Army peaked at 0.0000001545% in 1967, whie usage of Ankuochun was at 0.0000004650%. In recent years (2007-2011), Ankuochun started out with 0.00000000024% (while National Pacification Army was at 0.000000001%), National Pacification Army came out of use in 2008 sources, and usage of Ankuochun stayed at a steady 0.00000000015% until both stopped being used in sources in 2012. The only times usage of National Pacification Army has been over the usage of Ankuochun have been from 1950-1969, 1981-1984, and 1992-2006, and usage of Ankuochun spiked while usage of National Pacification Army plateaued during the same periods, suggesting that it was used much more. Roniius (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you read my reply at all. I said that the pinyin, Anguojun, was less common than National Pacification Army, and that Ankuochun was more common, and that given the choice between the common English name in RS, a common, but old-fashioned transliteration, and a rare, but modern transliteration, the English name wins out per WP:NDESC. Sources that use 'Ankuochun' cannot be used to justify 'Anguojun'. However, you've now caused a problem, by conflating the NPA and the NPA military government. These are separate topics. The NPA existed as a mere military organisation from 1926. The military government, taking over for the existing Beiyang government, was not established until mid-1927, and should probably dealt with in the Beiyang government article, where there is already a section on that subject. This article is clearly dealing with military organisation, and not the government, and the two should not be conflated. RGloucester  — ☎ 11:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I have suggested in the subsection below that the name of this article be changed to Ankuochun as per WP:PINYIN and WP:COMMONNAME, using the evidence in my reply above. Roniius (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said below, I will consult more reliable sources this evening. Ankuochun may well be the best possible title. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@RGloucester:@Roniius: I want to say that I support the translated name "National Pacification Army". In the scholarly works about the Warlord Era which I have access to, numerous spellings of the Chinese name exist, and none appears to be dominant. Applodion (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Applodion: This interests me, actually - I don't have any sources in my personal library or on the Internet that I have seen use a romanization system other than Wade-Giles or Pinyin. What other spellings are presented? For the English name, I have seen multiple translations (National Pacification Army seems to be dominant) such as National Tranquilizing Army or Citizens' Army for the Preservation of Tranquillity. I have noted that Ankuochun (or, alternatively, with the umlaut) appears to be dominant in the romanizations, with a few 21st-century sources preferring Anguojun. Google Ngram seems to back this up. Roniius (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Roniius: I am currently not at home, but I will list the spellings when I get to my books (probably the day after tomorrow). Applodion (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


### Article scope
Having taken a bit more of a look, I can say this article is completely problematic at this stage. The first half clearly deals with the military organisation, but the public opinion and relations with the KMT sections refer to it as a government, without ever explaining the process by which this occurred, and also causing significant overlap with the Beiyang government article. I think all content related with the governmental aspect will need to be removed to the Beiyang article, maybe involving a renaming or reconstruction of that article, with this article focusing solely on the military organisation that exist 1926–28. RGloucester  — ☎ 11:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The problem may be that western and Chinese historiography categorise these events in different ways. Notably, the linked Chinese Wikipedia article is only about the military government, and not about the military organisation. It explicitly excludes 1926 from its scope. I will leave these comments for a day or two before I start reorganising the article in line with Wikipedia policies. RGloucester  — ☎ 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It is hard to separate political and military events regarding this without losing context and coverage. The zhwiki article also talks about military events and somewhat touches on the formation of the formal alliance. I would prefer if this article is kept and expanded as a separate article from Beiyang government, going more in-depth about the period starting in 1926. Additionally, as per WP:PINYIN and WP:COMMONNAME, I suggest that the article be renamed to Ankuochun. Roniius (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, as I believe there is enough information on the government that could be its own article, this article could be split, with the governmental side being made its own article. Parts of it could be shortened and kept to provide context for events in this article, and the new article could be summarized in its section in Beiyang government. I believe that the article for Beiyang government may be too general for all of the information to be put there. Roniius (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with retaining contextual political material in this article, as of course, that is necessary. However, I must insist that information on the establishment and operation of the military government be moved to Beiyang government. At this time, there simply is not enough content to warrant an independent article for the military government, and the Beiyang government article itself is very incomplete, and could use fleshing out in that period. The scope of this article can be defined as the military organisation from 1926-1928, and the Beiyang government article can cover the government. Even the Chinese Wikipedia article is clear that the military government was a mere incarnation of the Beiyang government, and not a separate entity. The last thing we want is a situation of content forking, whereby multiple articles deal with the same subject. You need to understand that Wikipedia articles do not exist in a vacuum...they are all connected, and must be considered as a whole rather than as individual, unrelated parts. On the subject of the title, I will reconsider WP guidelines and the relevant sources, but I cannot say that I think Wade-Giles is the best solution at this time. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe there are enough sources on the politics and governmental aspects, especially relating to foreign policy. I was suggesting that the government be made into its own article, and related to Beiyang government as an article on a historical government of a country relates to a History of [Country] article. I do still suggest that this article be kept as an article for both the army and the government, and for the scope to cover the two organizations in general, as the two were closely interlinked. Both articles will have to mention the same military events (which take up a substantial part of this article) and the same political events - However, the article on the government (or the section in Beiyang government) will have to go into the political events in more detail, with military events summarized from this article, and the article for the army would have to go into detail about the army, while political events would have to be summarized from this article too. This would be content forking. Roniius (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This article cannot be an article for both the country and government, because the two are separate entities, and article for the government already exists. You cannot create a content fork of the existing article. Perhaps you were not aware of it existing, as you did not even link to it at the time you launched this article, but in any case, it did exist, and content related to that subject belongs there, not here. In English historiography, a clear distinction is made between the two subjects, and this must be maintained. An article for a government, for instance, cannot have a military infobox. You would do best to focus on the military aspect here. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Alright then, I concede my argument regarding the scope. You may do what you wish regarding splitting the article. You may want to summarize parts of this article in the article for the Fengtian clique. I will think about expanding Beiyang government so other sections meet the same quality as the section that is to be split from this article. As a side note, it may be good to request a third opinion on the renaming of the article. Truth be told, I do not want to deal with this article right now as I am not very stoic. I will also rethink the GAN, unless you believe that it can be kept. Roniius (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not trying to demean your work at all. On the contrary, your contribution is greatly appreciated. All I want is for you to come up to speed on Wikipedia policies...and help sort out what issues we have. There is no need for a removal of the GA nomination. I am sure this article can pass such a review once its issues are sorted out, and that will be entirely down to your effort here. I simply want co-operation in addressing what issues do exist. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for working with me on determining the article scope and clearing up misunderstandings (that was very nice of you). Roniius (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
One of the first things we need to do is clarify the timeline of events. I have been fixing a lot of errors, though it is admittedly confusing. When including events in a long article like this, always include the date, with a year. One area that this article is lacking in right now is the details of the period at the end of the Anti-Fengtian War and Zhang's assumption of power in Beijing. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I have added context on the Anti-Fengtian War. Will be working on adding years to dates. Roniius (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, this was greatly appreciated. I've worked to do some copyediting, restructured some of the material, and moved relevant content to the Beiyang article. Hopefully I will be able to bring some new sources to the article in the coming days. The one thing I don't have available is Jowett, and I'm fairly certain he goes more into detail about the structure and composition of the army, which I think we could use more information on. Perhaps also we could place the total number of troops in the infobox. RGloucester  — ☎ 11:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The recent page move was initially undiscussed. However, reverting to the last stable title (AnguojunAnguojun) would, in all likelihood, just be disruptive. Therefore, I have moved this article to Ankuochun which seems to be roughly everyone's second choice. If there are objections, then I recommend a move request to sort it out. I apologize if my interference causes any unnecessary complications to the article's development. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@RGloucester and Roniius: Pinging the article's primary contributors. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I've changed references to the army in the article in reflection of this. I wonder what User:RGloucester would think of this move. I am afraid that this may give rise to further debate and complications. Roniius (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
What on earth? We were in the middle of the discussing the matter, and as of this point, 3 out of 4 contributors favoured the previous title. We also have guidelines that discourage the use of Wade-Giles unless it is absolutely clear that this it is the common name, which is not determined, and indeed, following my further review of sources last night, I can say with certainly that I agree with Applodion. On what basis have you intervened in this matter? RGloucester  — ☎ 09:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Following that reply, I am now more afraid and also more angry, and I would like to end the discussion on the name soon. You and I are also both very convinced of our arguments, so I suggest to bring in RFC, 3O, or other dispute resolution noticeboards and/or state our simple arguments (without all of the fluff in between, simply the logic) in a new section/subsection of this talk page. Roniius (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest waiting until Applodion provides what sources he has, then proceeding with a formal move discussion. RGloucester  — ☎ 10:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. I just want to get this over with. Roniius (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Roniius, Applodion,  and RGloucester: While my interference was that of a neutral party, I will say there are multiple and recent sources that specify Ankuochun as the common name.[1][2][3] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Absurd, and a direct defiance of the Wikipedia gold standard of WP:BRD. You call American government documents from 1926 "recent" sources? We know the Ankuochun is used, we also know that National Pacification Army is used, and that Anguojun is used. That doesn't make any of them the common name, and certainly, none of the sources you selected 'specifies' that the common name is anything at all. Clearly you have no idea how Wikipedia determines what a 'common name', is, and moreover, being the 'common name' is not the sole determining factor. There are other article title criteria, such as WP:NATURALNESS, and topic specific guidelines like WP:PINYIN to take into account. This is a gross abuse of Wikipedia process, I suggest you refrain from further action in this area. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I stand by what I said earlier, in that I prefer the title of National Pacification Army. Given the difficulties of transliteration, and the NATURALNESS of the NPA title, and issues on sourcing, I think it the better title. I think MJL was certainly well meaning, but some more discussion is needed here. We ought build consensus formally on a new title, and then agree what to move it to, or whether to keep it here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

So I finally managed to consult my sources - and to my surprise, none of the titles are actually used all that often; authors like Diana Lary ("Warlord Soldiers"), Jean Chesneaux ("Popular Movements and Secret Socities in China 1840-1950"), Elizabeth J. Perry ("Rebels and Revolutionaries in North China 1845-1945"), and Tai Hsüan-chih ("The Red Spears, 1916-1949") generally prefer to refer to this united army as alliance, clique, coalition or just army led by Zhang or the northern warlords in general.As for those books in which the army is named, here an overview from my sources: Philip Jowett generally uses "Ankuochun" in his works (he seems to be the one who most strongly influences the current use of that name). The authors of "China in the 1920s. Nationalism and Revolution" use National Pacification Army. David Bonavia ("China's Warlords") also prefers National Pacification Army, and mentions Anguojun or An-kuo-chun as alternatives. C. Martin Wilbur ("The Nationalist Revolution in China, 1923-1928") uses An-kuo-chun. A few of the references in said books, mostly newspapers, also mention Ankuchun. Overall, not a strong argument for any title to be used. However, "An-kuo-chun" actually appeared more often than "Ankuochun". Applodion (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Given the merits of the English title in terms of WP:NATURALNESS, and the foolishness of attempting to choose one of many variants, I still retain support for National Pacification Army. I will open an RFC shortly to formally determine our next course of action. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @HigherScholar16: I noticed you reverted my edit on this article - may I please ask for the rationale behind this? Roniiustalk to me 12:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Pacification Army/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Going to start the review soon after an initial reading of the page and checking of sources.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I made minor edits to make the article flow better.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Roniius fixed the one major referencing issue in the page. There is no original research in the article and no plagiarism issues.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article covers the National Pacification Army from its foundation, its activities, how it functioned, and propaganda for and against the army.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
I see no bias towards or against the army.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Last edits made before mine were in June and before that in May.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
I love the images that you found for this article. You did a really great job image wise. Especially the one in the "Propaganda" section.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
@Roniius: Congratulations on making such a good article. There were few issues with the article and offers great coverage of one of the fifteen billion different armies in China at the time.
Hey @Roniius: I noticed a major problem in the article. This section of text is completely unsourced. "In October 1925, Sun Chuanfang began the invasion of Jiangsu, and Feng began his invasion of Shandong, which was now under the control of Fengtian general Zhang Zongchang. In November 1925, general Guo Songling turned against Zhang Zuolin, siding with Feng. In January 1926, Zhang launched an offensive, ordering his troops in Fengtian and Shandong provinces to invade Beijing and Tianjin. In order to achieve peace, Feng expelled Duan Qirui from Beijing, reverting the political situation to what it was like before his coup, and was eventually forced to withdraw from area."
Fixed. Roniiustalk to me 10:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)