Talk:Warlord Era

message: Remove statement
::An enduring legacy of this era was the injection of provincialism into national politics as characterized by Chiang's Whampoa clique, Mao Zedong's Hunan clique, and Jiang Zemin's Shanghai clique.
There isn't any historical connection between any of the warlord groups and any of the modern groups after that.  
Roadrunner 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What was the first use of the term "warlord era", and how did it come about? Was it coined by Chiang, or by historians? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  coinage 

message: I don't know if it is stated in this article, but how exactly did the foreign powers react to this chaotic disruption of their trade interests, did these warlords cooperate with the foreigners? and how did the europeans and japanese react to changes in power among the warlords within their spheres of influence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.26.219 (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The European powers together with the United States continued to have diplomatic relations with the government in Beijing, which had little power. The Japanese supported groups of warlords, hoping to push China into their sphere of influence. Most notably, the Japanese supported Marshal Zhang, the "Old Marshal" of Manchuria in his bids to conquer China until they assassinated him in 1928. There probably should be something in this article about the Japanese and the warlords. Really, the popular belief that Japanese policy towards China changed from a "normal" policy before 1931 and imperialistic starting in September 1931 with the seizure of Manchuria is dead wrong. Japan's policy was always to place China within its sphere of influence. In the 1920s, the Japanese supported Marshal Zhang and starting in 1931 started to seize parts of China for themselves.--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign reaction 

message: "and after during the Chinese Civil War."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.110.61.146 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in Second Paragraph 

message: While definitely colorful, this entire section reads more like a gossip rag than anything else, and goes into a good deal more detail than seems appropriate or necessary.  Even if everything currently written is deemed important enough to keep, it might be a good idea to at least break it down into subsections instead of the existing massive monstrosity.210.6.45.238 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started this task, but there is much left to do! Since the section has mostly politics and descriptions of warlord personalities, and little about social system, I changed the title of the section to "Warlords, their armies, and their political system." ch (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warlordism As A Social System 

message: "Junfa (軍閥), taken from the Japanese gunbatsu, which was taken in turn from the German."
What German term is supposed to be the origin here? I am German myself and I can't think of any likely candidates.
Personally, I find it much more likely that "gunbatsu" is derived from Anglo-American "gunboat politics," but I don't have any sources to back this up. Herr Hartmann (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology -> Junfa 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I'm just curious if there's a reason why this article lacks a conflict infobox? Is the subject too complicated for that or something? AHI-3000 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This era saw so many different factions fight and ally with each other that any attempt to put them into a single infobox would result in a chaotic mess. Applodion (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Hmm, yeah that sounds confusing, but I don't think that an infobox is totally impossible, it may be done in theory. It just needs to be formatted with some notes about how the different Warlord Era factions were not in stable alliances and fought amongst themselves. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question should always be "Does this infobox contribute anything to the article?" Articles don't have to have infoboxes; I would argue that an infobox would not improve this specific article in any way. For instance, warlord alliances often held merely for months, if at all. Even more stable alliances like the Zhili clique experienced civil wars. Many warlords switched sides an absurd number of times, sometimes even within the same conflict. An infobox would be utter chaos and not convey anything to reader aside of a parade of confusing names. Applodion (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an article's infobox should always be viewed as a convenient distillation of the article's body, rather than a presentation vehicle in itself. Remsense留 22:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox