Talk:Northern Expedition/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


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 [] 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, 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)