![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 24, 2012, March 24, 2013, and March 24, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
Well, I have to eat my words regarding the issue of whether the Nanking Massacre is known also as the Nanjing Incident -- it certainly is in some contexts. See, e.g., the article "The Nanjing Incident: Recent Research and Trends" by David Askew at [1]. I ought to have realized that this was how the Japanese would call it. In any event, I'm revising the article to reflect this.
-- Will O'Neil 07:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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. Thanks Hilyard ( talk) 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongly recommend rewriting. I am not an expert on the subject matter but the event deserves more careful treatment, especially giving attention to (a) grammar and sentence structure and (b) the political ramifications of the incident (including its impact on foreign relations). Incidentally, as far as I understand it was referred to as the "Nanking incident" starting soon after it occurred, because "incident" is how diplomats generally refer to events that affect relations between nations, rather than characterizing them as battles, attacks, massacres, or other such potentially inflammatory terms. SteveG23 ( talk) 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Rewrite Nanking Incident I would like to re-write this article to 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.) Thanks Hilyard ( talk) 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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
Or is the WP article about the Northern Expedition completely wrong? Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 02:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I just had a look at the Time Magazine report currently cited at note 4. The report, dated April 4, 1927, says that Nanjing (Nanking) was taken over the previous week by "the Nationalists", who were fighting against the "the Shantungese". "Nationalist" being a pretty close translation of "Kuomintang", the Time report implies that what happened in Nanjing in March 1927 was the Kuomintang taking Nanjing from control of the warlords. And not, as our WP article currently says, a matter of the Communists taking Nanjing from the Kuomintang. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 08:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus clearly supports "Nanking" over "Nanjing". On the capitalisation front, while Dicklyon makes a good argument, it has been adequately refuted by those who state that few of the "Nanjing incident" books are actually discussing this topic and there is also a clear numerical advantage in favour of capitalising. That said, no prejudice a new RM that solely discusses either the capitalisation or adding "(1927)", but please don't do them both at once (it gets messy). Jenks24 ( talk) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Nanjing incident →
Nanking Incident – This article was earlier moved from "Nanjing Incident" to "Nanjing incident". Although, browsing through the first ten pages of googlebooks for "Nanking incident" 1927
[2] and "Nanjing incident" 1927
[3] shows me that, in fact, "incident" is capitalized most of the time at both "Nanjing Incident" and "Nanking Incident", thus the names are
proper nouns. The latter appearing the most, which is the
common name. --
Cold Season (
talk)
00:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 24, 2012, March 24, 2013, and March 24, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Well, I have to eat my words regarding the issue of whether the Nanking Massacre is known also as the Nanjing Incident -- it certainly is in some contexts. See, e.g., the article "The Nanjing Incident: Recent Research and Trends" by David Askew at [1]. I ought to have realized that this was how the Japanese would call it. In any event, I'm revising the article to reflect this.
-- Will O'Neil 07:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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. Thanks Hilyard ( talk) 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongly recommend rewriting. I am not an expert on the subject matter but the event deserves more careful treatment, especially giving attention to (a) grammar and sentence structure and (b) the political ramifications of the incident (including its impact on foreign relations). Incidentally, as far as I understand it was referred to as the "Nanking incident" starting soon after it occurred, because "incident" is how diplomats generally refer to events that affect relations between nations, rather than characterizing them as battles, attacks, massacres, or other such potentially inflammatory terms. SteveG23 ( talk) 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Rewrite Nanking Incident I would like to re-write this article to 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.) Thanks Hilyard ( talk) 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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
Or is the WP article about the Northern Expedition completely wrong? Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 02:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I just had a look at the Time Magazine report currently cited at note 4. The report, dated April 4, 1927, says that Nanjing (Nanking) was taken over the previous week by "the Nationalists", who were fighting against the "the Shantungese". "Nationalist" being a pretty close translation of "Kuomintang", the Time report implies that what happened in Nanjing in March 1927 was the Kuomintang taking Nanjing from control of the warlords. And not, as our WP article currently says, a matter of the Communists taking Nanjing from the Kuomintang. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 08:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus clearly supports "Nanking" over "Nanjing". On the capitalisation front, while Dicklyon makes a good argument, it has been adequately refuted by those who state that few of the "Nanjing incident" books are actually discussing this topic and there is also a clear numerical advantage in favour of capitalising. That said, no prejudice a new RM that solely discusses either the capitalisation or adding "(1927)", but please don't do them both at once (it gets messy). Jenks24 ( talk) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Nanjing incident →
Nanking Incident – This article was earlier moved from "Nanjing Incident" to "Nanjing incident". Although, browsing through the first ten pages of googlebooks for "Nanking incident" 1927
[2] and "Nanjing incident" 1927
[3] shows me that, in fact, "incident" is capitalized most of the time at both "Nanjing Incident" and "Nanking Incident", thus the names are
proper nouns. The latter appearing the most, which is the
common name. --
Cold Season (
talk)
00:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)