Talk:Nanking incident of 1927

message: Previously the entry for Nanjing Incident had been a redirect to Nanking Massacre, sadly confusing readers. I've given a brief account of this fairly important incident of an earlier era. I won't say that the Nanking Masscre has never been called the Nanjing Incident, but I certainly never have seen it so. In any event, I also refer the reader to the massacre entry.
Will O'Neil 05:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "an entirely different and more horrendous event a decade later"
is horrendous really the word to use here? a few hundred thousand Chinese were killed in the Nanjing Massacre, while in the Nanjing Incident there were 40 deaths at most. Maybe that phrase should just be taken out? LuChang 10:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording? 

message: I have been researching this event and I have found a few different sources that contradict this article alot. First and foremost, my sources say nationalist troops were in control of the city when a communist army attacked and in the ensuing chaos, Nationalists attacked the foreign consulates while the communists committed other atocities before taking contol of Nanking. This article says warlord troops were in contol of Nanking and Nationalist forces attacked them. However, at the top of this article is does say that communists were involved. My sources also say that only one British cruiser actually bombarded the city, with two American and one British destroyer though several other warships were present. I have just finished writing an article about this event so I am going to assmume there are alot of mistakes in this article and replace it with one that makes a little more sense and has references. Please respond here if there is a problem, thanks.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not edit the campaignbox unless you want to add more appropriate links or something.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Problem

message: I would like to re-write this article in include more than the military aspect. This will be my first article. Are there objections to my doing this? Any suggestions on how to proceed. (I do not have my text finished, but do not want to work on it further, if it will not generally be acceptabl.Hilyard (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite this article 

message: According to this article, which is talking about events in March 1927:
"Conflict in China had been the same for years, since the beginning of the Warlord era, rebels from the south and communists in the north fought a long war which finally ended in 1949 with the Nationalist withdrawal from the mainland to Taiwan."
I thought the military conflict in the period of Northern Expedition (1926 to 1928) the two chief belligerents were
* the Kuomintang, moving north from the Guangzhou region, and initially supported by the Communist Party;
* Warlord alliances such as the Beiyang government, the Fengtian clique and the Zhili clique.
Or is the WP article about the Northern Expedition completely wrong? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical context -- the Northern Expedition

message: I've just been looking at the WP page about the Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek. In the section Chiang_Kai-shek#Competition_with_Wang_Jingwei, it states that Chiang Kai-shek took Nanjing (aka Nanking) in March 1927, and from that time on he made Nanjing his capital. This contradicts what is said in the current version of this Nanjing incident article, that Nanjing was the KMT capital prior to March 1927 when it taken over from the KMT by the Communists. Something really does seem to be wrong here... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiang Kai-shek article contradicts this one 

message: I've been looking at the cited pages in the book Yangtze Patrol by Kemp Tolley. I agree it's quite a good source, but it does NOT support what the article says about which Chinese groups were fighting which. According to this book
* The victorious forces in the battle over Nanjing are described as Cantonese (page 154), which means they were coming from the south. Canton, also called Guangzhou is in the far south of China, and was the stronghold of the Kuomintang.
* the losers are described (on page153) as Shantungese and as Northerners, loyal to Chang Chung-ch'ang.  Chang Chung-ch'ang is an old way of writing the name of Zhang Zongchang. He was then the warlord of Shandong. (Shantung).
In short it confirms what is said in the WP page about Chiang Kaishek. It was the Kuomintang, moving up from the south, who took Nanjing from the warlord in March 1927. How was this transformed into an account of the Communists from the north taking the city away from the KMT? 
Tolley's book does mention that some of the victorious troops identified themselves as "Bolshevists" (page 156). These were, presumably, either members or supporters of the Chinese Communist Party. The thing is, though, at this time Chinese Communists were actually members of the Kuomintang. (See First United Front.) Chiang Kai-shek only launched his purge against them when his Northern expedition reached Shanghai. (See Shanghai massacre.) Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed all the contraditions from this article to align with original source.  Chinese history during that time is very confusing, with KMT and CPC in alliance to expel warlords but plotting to back-stab each other at the same time... DCTT (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited book does not support what is said