Talk:Warlord

message: Hi  and , this is a superb revision. Here are some general comments:
* The lead section could use a reference for the definition, if one exists, and/or similarly the entymology section could be extended to the modern usage with a reference.
* I've indicated where citations are unclear or needed
* Conceptions of warlordism section
** The Economics of warlordism subsection is a weird fit in the Conceptions of warlordism section. Why have it there? What's the aim? 
** I think that Conceptions of warlordism is probably one of the less coherent and incomplete sections in the article. What holds it together thematically?
** Understanding warlordism in the context of European feudalism seems like it should be a subsection of Conceptions, and I've made it so
* In general you should us subheadings more and break long paragraphs into shorter ones. I have made some improvements here.
* I reorganized the section "Understanding contemporary cases of cooperative warlordism" and "Understanding contemporary cases of ungoverned warlordism" somewhat. You discuss various cases as examples so I use subheaidngs here. The problem is that you then have a subsection of contemporary examples that is overlapping. I'm not sure why you discuss the examples in both paces. I've tried to reorganize a little but this needs more thought as my work was hasty.
* COmments on cases
** The Liberia subsection has no citations, though William Reno would be a good source. Or Amos Sawyer's work.
** Mugabe does not seem to qualify as a warlord, as he was a insurgent leader who did not necessarily control territory as a warlord prior to victory. If he is a warlord then every rebel leader is one, which would not make sense. Also, the section seemed biased in viewpoint and poorly cited.
** Likewise Idi Amin is not a good example of a warlord as he did not control territory as a non-sovereign. He was a coup leader.
Chrisblattman (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Comments

message: --Timurberk 14:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Georgia (country)]] and [[Russia]] 

message: We still need citations here, for dating of warlord era and of continuing warlordism. If you see other POV issues, please leave a note here pointing them out specifically.
I'm not sure the game paragraph is useful here - These might be sufficient as See also.Lisamh 01:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: neutrality of China section

message: This article could significantly benefit from a section on Afghan warlords written by a knowledgable person. Such a section would necessarily include information contained within Opium production in Afghanistan. ~ Rollo44 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghan Warlordism 

message: I guess Chechnya since about 2002 is not worth being referenced as warlord controlled KonstKaras (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern warlord 

message: For a Female Warlord, would Warlady be an appropriate title?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperator-Zor (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warlady 

message: It's possible if we put warlords of Cambodia, it has five warlord. Can we put it ??
It has following titles:
#Duke Deijoboraraj of Kompongsvay. (Duke in Khmer is Neak Oknha)
#Duke Sourkealok of Pursat.
#Duke Pisnulok of Treang.
#Duke Orchun of Tbongkhmom.
#Duke Thammadeijo of Baphnom. 
It was derived from ancient history of Cambodia. (Warlord in Khmer is ស្ដេចត្រាញ់ or ស្ដេចសឹក).
(Nisetpdajsankha (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Warlords of Cambodia

message: The very first sentence in the article seems to make assumptions which are not explained anywhere in the article: "A warlord is a person with power who has both military and civil control over a subnational area due to armed forces loyal to the warlord and not to a central authority."  How does this control not make the warlord the de facto central authority?  This sentiment (that the warlord is somehow less valid than other political leaders) is repeated throughout the article without being explained or justified.  Either an explanation or just a link to another article which provides the background necessary to understanding this position would be appreciated.
TTK (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article makes assumptions about authority which really should be explained 

message: I know it's common usage for English translations, but it's a ridiculous orientalist anachronism that doesn't have a place on a neutral encyclopedia. How can you define a "subnational" area before the rise of the nation state? Going by this article's definition, every single lord, duke, count, and baron in pre-18th century Europe is also a "warlord", why just condottieri then? Pre-Meiji Japan was about as much of a nation state as the Holy Roman Empire was, so why are Oda Nobunaga and Takeda Shingen "warlords", but Friedrich V and Johann Tserclaes are "Elector Palatine" and "Count of Tilly"? 
Goodpoints (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese daimyo as "warlords"

message: If the Texas national guard is loyal to the governor of Texas instead of to the federal government, then does that make the governor of Texas a warlord? He has military and civil control over a subnational area and there is the presence of armed forces that are loyal to him instead of the central authority. Is there a causal connection? 203.215.118.80 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a governor a warlord? 

message: Definition
Definition of Warlord should be expanded    
Description
Subheading “Description” needs to be significantly developed. The definition/description is weak and contains no references or citations. The refutation of relationship between warlords and feudal authority is incorrect as there are political science essays that describe the feudal role of landed noble class as de facto warlords [I need to locate these sources]. The purported origin of the term warlord from Chinese and its adaptation by Germans needs to be researched/verified – and seems inaccurate. The direction of the “Description” section is random and disorganized. The description most certainly requires an illustration of the political and economic systems inherent within warlord-dominated territories. This will also require an expansion into the political hierarchy, the realms of warlord-warlord and warlord-society relationships, methods of ensuring loyalty, use of force, how social services are delivered, and revenue extraction.
Warlordism in the Context of European Feudalism
This section seems like it could be broken into a few separate sections. Going off of the ideas listed below, you could place the parts of the article on European Feudalism under the "European" section, the Afghanistan section under the "Afghanistan" heading, and the warlordism definition/origins under the "Definition" section if you choose to keep it. I was also confused as to where some of the information on the word origins came from, so I have added a "citation needed".
Kevinmccarthy25 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview of strategy for improving article on Warlord (3/20/2016) 

message: Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao, do not meet criteria listed for warlord in the beginning of the article. I will revise unless concensus says to not.  Also, redundant list to Afghanistan twice.Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many non-warlords listed

message: I thought this article could use a leading illustration, but I know that identification of warlords is fraught with political and ethnic biases. I chose the photo of Zhang Zuolin because (1) it is an authentic image from life (2) Zhang is deceased and left no particular political legacy with which anyone might identify (3) his identification as a "warlord" is not disputed to my knowledge within or outside of China (4) another photograph of him currently illustrates the Chinese warlord article. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: Franz Halder, AJP Taylor and David Blackbourn have all described Hitler as a warlord, yet he does not fit the definition in the article. Crawiki (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Halder wrote he was a like a "Feldherr" (field marshall)--which was mistranslated into English as warlord. AJP Taylor said he was NOT not a warlord but an ordinary German. Where did David Blackbourn call him a warlord??? Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler as warlord