Talk:Warlord

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christopher Connors, Jp-columbia. Peer reviewers: Shreyadhital, Kevinmccarthy25, Michaelaelan, Kdion.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Some Comments
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)

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

I have no idea after reading this article and discussion page what the difference was between warlordism and feudalism. After reading the feudalism article, I tried to clarify the distinction. Saying "Historical Science clearly distinguishes" does not really help, since I've never met Historical Science and can't find his writings. Seriously, I would love to see some sources or references on the difference between warlordism and feudalism, perhaps a discussion of how feudalism in the high middle ages in Europe arose from the warlordism of the dark ages at the end of the roman empire. David s graff 16:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

neutrality of China section
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)

Afghan Warlordism
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)

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

Warlady
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)

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

Article makes assumptions about authority which really should be explained
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)

Japanese daimyo as "warlords"
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)

Is a governor a warlord?
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)

Overview of strategy for improving article on Warlord (3/20/2016)
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)

Modern Usage It appears that someone with at least rudimentary knowledge of academic writing took a stab at the “Modern Usage” subheading, citing failed states and clientelism, and even cites Mukhopadhyay, but it is open for more development with social science and citation. The list of examples can also be expanded – although I’m not sure if that’s necessary).

List of countries, regions, or empires From this point, the article focuses on several countries: Afghanistan, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia; it also has subheadings for Europe and another labeled, “Russian Civil War and Chechen conflicts.” These subheadings – five countries, one region, and the odd attempt to consolidate several hundred years of Russian history into one paragraph, are indiscriminate and haphazard.

The subheading on Afghanistan, which I wrote, is fairly developed, but requires a great deal of expansion and analysis to be considered well-developed and I would will continue on this development. While I referenced Mukhopadhyay already, there is more from that work that is relevant, but I am also researching contrasting views. It should be noted that 18 of the 21 citations generated thus far in conjunction with this “Warlord” article are connected to the subheading on Afghanistan, demonstrating the overall weakness of the page.

The subheadings for China, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia contain brief references to some historical event where the term warlord applies, then lists names, dynasties, and kingdoms, without tying these to the warlord topic. There are no citations for these subheadings and no political science references. Likewise, there are neither citations nor political science references in the “Europe” and “Russian Civil War and Chechen conflicts” subheadings, and they are problematic in many ways.

China This section does not seem to be inaccurate, although my knowledge is limited, however it is completely left without citation as you noted above. I also found it concerning that the bulk of this section is centered on the modern history of China, 1900-present, which is completely disproportionate given the storied history in the region/country. Kevinmccarthy25 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional suggestions to improve article I suggest that the article be first broken down into broad regions, such as continents. Each continent should then be broken down into subheadings, using a chronologically accurate historical perspective to identify sub-regions, which may include pre-state territories, kingdoms, colonies, and, ultimately, modern nation-states. Each sub-section should include historical perspective, political development, and social science analysis to illustrate.

Inexplicably, this article is completely devoid of any references to Africa. As is evident from readings related to post-colonial Africa, the application of the term warlord to describe the political and economic paradigm in governance is germane and necessary to be explored. Similarly, instability in Latin America, particularly in Central America, has given rise to clientelist political and economic arrangements where regional warlords emerged to exert significant power and influence over the policy decisions of central governments. Much of the research and analysis for this article will hone in on the development of warlord dominated societies in Africa and Latin America. List of readings/references to consider (incomplete, as I am still conducting research) Building a Theory of Strongman Governance in Afghanistan (Dipali Mukhopadhyay) Disguised warlordism and combatanthood in Balkh: the persistence of informal power in the formal Afghan state (Dipali Mukhopadhyay) Comparative Politics, Chapter 2: The State (David J. Samuels) Humanitarian Relief and Civil Conflict (Max Blouin and Stephane Pallange) On the Origin of States: Stationary Bandits and Taxation in Eastern Congo (Raúl Sánchez de la Sierra) On thugs and heroes: Why warlords victimize their own civilians (Jean-Paul Azam) Violence and the Rise of Open-Access Orders (Douglass C. North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast) Violent Conflicts and Governance Challenges in West Africa: the case of the Mano River basin area (Amos Sawyer) War Making and State Making as Organized Crime (Charles Tilly) Warlord Politics and African States (William Reno) Warlords, Politicians and the Post-First Civil War Election in Liberia (George Klay Kieh, Jr.) Warlords: Strong-arm Brokers in Weak States (Kimberly Marten

People/groups to research (partial list, research continues) Charles Taylor (Liberia/Cote d’Ivoire/Sierra Leone) Samuel Doe (Liberia) Joseph Kony (Lord’s Resistance Army) Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone/ Revolutionary United Front) Roosevelt Johnson (Liberia) Thomas Lubanga (Congo) Bosco Ntaganda (Rwanda/Congo) Patriotic Front for the Liberation of Congo Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) Idi Amin (Uganda) Muammar Gadhafi (Libya)

Jp-columbia (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Jp-columbia


 * Hi, . I think you've identified some core problems with the page, especially the coverage gaps. On the subject of the list, you can make a new page (with a title like List of Warlords) and move your work there, including a link to it from this page. Having a well delineated list separate from this page might be a big improvement overall for the topic. What do you think? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam (Wiki Ed). Thanks for your suggestion. My aim here is not to simply list warlords or list states/regions where warlords are present. What I'm trying to do is provide a definition for what is and what is not a warlord, and explain through accepted political science theory how a warlord society manifests in political, economic, and social order, drawing comparisons and contrasts in various regions where warlords are present. The essential substance of this article will be to help readers understand what it means when one refers to "warlord" versus merely providing a list. Please let me know if you think this meets the criteria of this page and whether you have any suggestions on structuring the page in that manner. Thanks!! --Jp-columbia (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds great! I mentioned the list only because it comprises most of the content on the page now. I think I'm unclear on what you want to do with the geographical lists as they are now. Do you intent to remove them or reorganize them? My suggestion would be to reframe the page as you've proposed above but to considerably shorten and condense the current litany of warlords (since it doesn't add much to the page). What do you think? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . I think these are some pretty solid building blocks for the article. Not sure what else you've done separately, perhaps in a word doc (that's what I did), but I wonder if you could also find and consider adding something on warlordism as a negative term leveled on non-European rulers outside of the continent during previous eras? It seems to me in a lot of instances Warlords, whether in Africa, Afghanistan, China or elsewhere have many characteristics that are shared between themselves and feudal rulers in Europe. Yet as is often described, a King, Emperor or Prince doesn't seem to carry the same negative connotations as Warlord. I remember reading some things on this in the past, but I'm having trouble locating them now. I'll see if I can help find some comparative works that might help to contrast the differences between warlords and European feudal leaders and describe whether those differences are enough to really separate the two distinctions, or if the term warlord indeed is just a title given to non-European "feudal leaders" in an age when Europeans looked down upon how other countries did things. It looks like the scope of your article is pretty broad, so I understand if this would be adding too much work for you. However, I feel like it could add some balance to the article and perhaps bring in some considerations that a lot of people don't give much thought toward, but is nonetheless pretty important. --Kdion (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kdion Thanks for your suggestions!   Jp-columbia (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Too many non-warlords listed
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)

Illustration
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)

Hitler as warlord
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)

See also https://www.biblio.com/stalin-as-warlord-by-albert-seaton/work/2588117 Crawiki (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And this, https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9781936274291/Mussolini-Warlord-Failed-Dreams-Empire-1936274299/plp Crawiki (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n06/david-blackbourn/the-greatest-warlord Crawiki (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)