Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty

[edit]

Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Khanate General (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it passes the criteria for FA. It's a significant series of wars that ended the Northern Song Dynasty. The article has received a GA review and has been through the peer review process.Khanate General (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Simon Burchell Just had a quick glance and will add more if time allows. First impression was that the lead begins rather abruptly with "A series of Jurchen military campaigns against the Song Dynasty began with a declaration of war in November 1125". It would be better to start with a context - something like "The Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty were a series of campaigns in the 12th century (or whatever) between the Jurchen of (wherever) against the Song Dynasty of (wherever). Simon Burchell (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I haven't had time to come back to do a full review but I note the article has been picked up by others - I had a quick glance today and noticed that the article has been renamed to Jin campaigns... - however the lead text and the infobox still refer to Jurchen campaigns - these need to be changed to reflect the new article title. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Quadell
Resolved issues

Although the prose and sourcing are excellent, I am concerned that this article may not be comprehensive enough to fulfill criterion 1b. When I look at the summary of the conflict as given in the infobox, it looks like many aspects of the conflict have been left out of the article or are barely mentioned. I'll give some examples.

  • The infobox says that one of the three most important results of the various campaigns was "Song court moves south to Hangzhou". This is backed up by the Hangzhou article, which states "Hangzhou was chosen as the new capital of the Southern Song Dynasty when they regrouped after their defeat at the hands of the Jin in 1123. It remained the capital from the early 12th century until the Mongol invasion of 1276", which clearly covers the period discussed here, and that article gives lots more information about Hangzhou during that time period. But Hangzhou is not mentioned in the "Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty" article at all. (In fact, it claims the Southern Song made Nanjing its first capital, and then moved it to Shaoxing, which seems to contradict the infobox and the Hangzhou article.) If the Song's move to Hangzhou was one of the most important results of the conflict, shouldn't it be fully mentioned, and explained in contrast to Nanjing and Shaoxing?
    • Now fixed. Skipping the history of the Song retreat from Kaifeng to Nanjing to Hangzhou was a major oversight. I have expanded it to a full section, which it deserves. There's no contradiction, Nanjing was the first in a long series of temporary capitals. Hangzhou was the last and most important. The Song ruled from Hangzhou for the next 150 years.--Khanate General (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox lists the Battle of Caishi, the Battle of Tangdao, the Battle of Yancheng, and the Jingkang Incident as the four most important battles in the conflict. This analysis seem to be backed up by the sources. The Jingkang Incident is mentioned in the lead and is fully described in the text, with a large section of its own and a link to the main article. That seems quite appropriate; it's what I would expect for coverage of a major event. But the Battle of Caishi is mentioned only in one short paragraph, despite the fact that the article says "Traditional Chinese accounts consider this the turning point of the war". Additionally, the article only mentions the Battle of Tangdao in passing, when noting the use of bombs in the "Gunpowder warfare" section, but nothing is said of the battle's importance, influnce, which side won, etc. I would think it would be fully described in the "Campaigns" supersection. And finally, the article fails to mention the Battle of Yancheng at all. Can this article be said to be comprehensive when some of the most important battles are not fully covered?
    • Now fixed. The Battle of Caishi was an important battle in Hailingwang's campaign, and has been expanded into a full section.
    • Now fixed. The Battle of Yancheng was a decisive victory for Yue Fei, and does deserve a longer summary than a single line. It has been expanded into a full paragraph.
    • Expanded the Battle of Tangdao the outcome of the conflict. Tangdao was not a significant battle in terms of territorial gains or political aftermath. Tangdao is an important event in the history of Song maritime technology and warfare, which is why I left it out of the campaigns supersection. The battles in the campaign box are technically not the most important battles, just the ones with Wikipedia articles.--Khanate General (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox lists the Alliance on the Sea and the Treaty of Shaoxing as the most important treaties in the conflict. The Treaty of Shaoxing in described in detail in its own section (though it is not mentioned in the lead). But the Alliance of the Sea is not mentioned at all in the article.

I'm leaning oppose for now, until I can be sure that all the most important aspects of the conflict are fully covered. – Quadell (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed with the recent additions, and hopeful that the issue on coverage of battles can be resolved. – Quadell (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My initial concerns have been fixed. I have not yet performed a full review, but I hope to have time to do so in the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent additions, I have carefully read through the entire article. I am convinced that this article is now complete. The quality of the prose is very high; I made a few copy-edits, but found nothing that requires further collaborative work at this FAC. The lead is excellent, adequately summarizing the article. The article is well-organized. The "Citations" and "Bibliography" sections are impeccably formatted, and the "See also" section is appropriate. I was able to perform spotchecks for cites 1 (a, b, c, and d), 10, 23, 29, 47, and 65; in each case, the article's claims were fully backed by the sources, and there was never even a whiff of close paraphrasing. I'm happy to Support this article for featured status. – Quadell (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about halfway, at Jurchen_campaigns_against_the_Song_Dynasty#General Yue Fei's counteroffensive. These are my edits. One question: "The economic transformation of Hangzhou meant the government had to partially abandon its status as a "temporary" capital by constructing more permanent structures.": I don't know what this is saying, apart from "With the economic transformation of Hangzhou, the government began building permanent structures." - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hangzhou was created as a temporary capital. The Song government intended to move back to Kaifeng once the Jin were defeated, so government buildings in Hangzhou, like the imperial palace, were constructed for short-term use. Once retaking northern China became less plausible and Hangzhou grew into a significant city for trade, the imperial buildings were extended and renovated to better befit its status as a genuine imperial capital and not just a temporary one.--Khanate General (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to go with that in the article; that's easier to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

[edit]

I know nothing of this history, and haven't clicked through to any of the "main" articles to see if this one properly sums them up—I'm just looking at the prose.

Suggestions that will not affect support in any way

[edit]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything looks solid to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved issues (images)

Comment on image captions. This seems like an excellent article as a whole. For now let me just comment on image captions, because this is what many users of Wikipedia like to read, if nothing else. For these readers' sake, most captions could be made more accurate, more informative, or both:

Ok, that's all I can do for now! Will do more on other aspects of the article if time allows. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved (title)

Comment on title. I'm not sure "Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty" is the best title for this page. It's true that the rulers of the Jin dynasty (1115-1234) were of Jurchen ethnicity, but while it's convenient for stylistic reasons to alternate between "the Jin" and "the Jurchens" in the text, the title can only have one form. If the Jurchens had conducted campaigns against the Song before founding the Jin dynasty in 1115 or after the fall of the Jin in 1234, we would have a good reason to keep "Jurchen" in the title. But the campaigns discussed here all fall between 1125 and 1234, so "Jin" seems more precise than "Jurchen". And because the Song Dynasty is a political entity, using the parallel form Jin dynasty in the title would also seem preferable. This may not be a good time to propose a move, and ***this is definitely not a reason to oppose FA status***, but I think a title change would make the article even better. (By the same reasoning, Manchu conquest of China should be renamed Qing conquest of China, but that's another issue.) Note that this issue was raised on Talk:Timeline of the Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty#List name about a month ago, and the current nominator granted there was a possible inconsistency, but the commentator who raised that issue did not reply to Khanate General's (who was then editing under the name "Typing General") request for advice, so the issue was dropped. Madalibi (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of the alternative titles that I proposed in the talk?--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty, short and sweet. Jin-Dynasty campaigns against the Song Dynasty sounds too heavy (as would "Qing-dynasty conquest of China). Jin campaigns against Song China is another possibility, and Jin campaigns against Song is already a redirect. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move. It's shorter than the current one.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments on sources and content

[edit]
Resolved (sources and content)
  • I'm starting to read the content more closely, but let me start with a few comments on the sources. The title and page numbers of three articles from edited volumes are missing. I took care of Franke 1994, but Hymes 2000 and Needham 1987 need to be completed too.
  • Most of the narrative is derived from Mote 1999 (an excellent survey of Chinese history that has detailed coverage of military campaigns), Franke 1994 (a long and detailed article on the Jin dynasty), and Lorge 2005 (a short survey of Chinese military history). All three are fine and reliable sources, but I'm not sure they give a complete picture of all the issues. Ari Daniel Levine's coverage of "The reigns of Huizong and Qinzong and the fall of the northern Song" in vol. 5, Part 1 of the Cambridge History of China (2005) is detailed and more up-to-date, and sometimes presents different interpretations. Among other things, it states that Contrary to the teleological narrative of traditional history, neither the profligacy of Huizong's court nor the policies of the Cai Jing ministry were responsible for the fall of the northern Song. This claim goes somewhat against our current text, which says that Corruption marred the reign of Emperor Huizong, enthroned in 1100, who was more skilled as a painter than as a ruler. Huizong was known for his extravagance, and funded the costly construction of gardens and temples while rebellions threatened the state's grip on power. These two sentences are referenced to Mote 1999, and the rest of the paragraph explains more reasons for Song failure, but there still seems to be more complex views out there. For the sake of WP:NPOV, we probably need to integrate these other points of view in the narrative, perhaps by harnessing Levine 2005. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Sixteen Prefectures were at the core of the anti-Liao alliance between Jin and Song, and later became the core of contention between the two dynasties. Could you explain their significance in the lede, or at least mention them in more specific terms than "territories previously ruled by the Khitan"? These crucial fortified prefectures come up again as just "territory" in the Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty‎#Background section (The Jurchens .... offered territory to the Song in exchange for military support against the Liao and the Song intended to seize a larger share of the territory than had been promised). When they are finally mentioned explicitly in the fourth paragraph of that same section (The Jurchen success against the Khitans and control of the Sixteen Prefectures gave them more leverage than the Song during the negotiations), the reader will have trouble understanding why possession of the Sixteen Prefectures would give the Jin more leverage in negotiations. Could you solve this problem please? If you need quick sources, check the first three sections of Sixteen Prefectures, which I edited myself some time ago. :) Madalibi (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The last paragraph of the Background section may be better placed elsewhere. It explains why the northern Song failed, but this analysis is not really part of the "background": it should come after the the Jin campaigns that made the northern Song fall have been explained. For the sake of narrative fluidity, could you find a better place for this paragraph? It would be also nice to integrate an explanation of Song failure against the Liao into the narrative of the Background section. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on narrative clarity. I think the narrative still needs to be made clearer! Many events are presented in non-chronological order, but because the dates of these events are often omitted, it may become difficult for readers to understand what happened and in what order. The third paragraph of the "Background" section mentions Jin 1122 battles after Song military preparations, but before a Song campaign that started in 1121, and it mentions the 1126 execution of Tong Guan in the middle of a story that ended in 1123. The Siege of Taiyuan section is also confusing:
    • Now fixed. The sequence of events in the Background should be more straight forward.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It involves Tong Guan again when we have already heard that he was executed. (Incidentally, Tong Guan was a eunuch and represented eunuch power at Huizong's court: this fact may be worth mentioning somewhere!)
    • If the Liao fell in 1125, how could a Jurchen army have been sent to capture the Liao Southern Capital in 1126. Could it be that the Jin recaptured it from the Song, and it was therefore the former Liao Southern Capital? But how could that take place in 1126 if the Jin armies that seized the Southern Capital reached Kaifeng in January 1126? Could you clarify?
    • "By December": the text seems to imply this is 1126, but I think it's 1125.
    • Jin armies reached the city of Taiyuan in January 1126 and defeated Song forces. But didn't they seize Taiyuan only in November 1126?
      • The source says that In January of 1126, the Jurchen army overran Song defenses and besieged Taiyuan. But Mote 1999 on page 197 says that Taiyuan in Central Shanxi, Zonghan's Western Army, in its much slower progress through the mountains, was just approaching in March 1126. Levine doesn't state when the Western Army arrived in Taiyuan, but he does say that the strategic garrison valiantly held out until the ninth month of 1126.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did some research on the Taiyuan siege in the History of Song (chapter 23) and History of Jin (chapter 3). What seems to have happened is that Wanyan Zonghan, the Jurchen general who led the Jin's western army, took Shuozhou 朔州 on 29 Dec. 1125, and Daizhou 代州 on 6 Jan. 1126, and besieged Taiyuan on 16 Jan. 1126. On 11 April of that year [in the third month of the Chinese calendar], he was relieved by Yinshuke 銀术可 and returned to the Jin Western Capital (Datong). On 26 August, Zonghan was ordered to leave for a new campaign against the Song. He departed south on 5 Sept. and took Taiyuan on 21 Sept. 1126. This is lightning-fast considering that Taiyuan is about 250 south of Datong! There's another source of confusion with the dates: Mote converts all dates to the Julian calendar, but Levine doesn't. When Levine's speaks of "the 12th month of 1125" he means the 12th month of the Chinese lunisolar year (Xuanhe 7 of Song Huizong or Tianhui 3 of Jin Taizong) that roughly corresponds but does not perfectly overlap with the year 1125 of the Julian calendar. But the 12th month of "1125" actually spanned from 27 Dec. 1125 to 24 Jan. 1126. I hope this clarifies a few things! Madalibi (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a combination of two solutions: (1) add dates where they would be useful (treaties, battles, executions, etc.); (2) present the events in strict chronological order. Madalibi (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. I have done so for the Siege of Taiyuan. The sequence of events is more straight forward.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved (more content issues)
  • Other issues:
    • The text says that in the first siege of the Song capital Kaifeng, the city's inhabitants resorted to cannibalism after the city's supplies were exhausted. Yet the siege only lasted 33 days. I don't have Hucker 1975 at hand to check his claim about cannibalism, but is it plausible that a city's supplies would be exhausted after just a month? Could it be that Hucker is talking about the longer second siege?
      • He was talking about the first siege. When the city ran out of supplies and its citizens were reduced to cannibalism, the Sung government capitulated. The Jurchens then withdrew... When the Chinese gave up trying to make the required payments, the Jurchen returned and sacked the city in 1127.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see, thank you. Could you compare Hucker's story with the detailed account in Levine 2009, pp. 637-38, which doesn't mention Song food supplies? It even seems that some Song ministers were advising to wait until the Jin troops ran out of supplies! The Song eventually chose to attack the besieging Jurchens directly, but had to capitulate because their attack was a complete fiasco. It's quite possible that Hucker was simply wrong. Not sure what to do in such cases... Maybe that sentence should just be removed? Madalibi (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The abdication of Song Huizong is not explained anywhere. It is mentioned in the lede (briefly, as should), then the next time Huizong is mentioned, we only hear that On January 28, Emperor Qinzong was enthroned after the abdication of Emperor Huizong. Fearing the approaching Jin army, Huizong departed the capital and escaped southwards. Could you fill that gap?
    • Speaking of the accession of Qinzong... This is a minor detail, but let me mention it anyway. The current text says that Song Qinzong was enthroned on *28 January 1126* (ref: Mote 1999, p. 196). Ari Daniel Levine's article in the Cambridge History of China volume on the Song (2009), on the other hand, says that Qinzong was enthroned on the 23rd day of the 12th month of "1125," that is, the seventh year of Huizong's Xuanhe 宣和 reign era, the lunisolar year that corresponds roughly to 1125 in the Julian calendar. A Chinese-language website that converts Chinese and Western calendar dates tells me that this date corresponds to *18 January 1126* in the Julian calendar. The official History of Song says that Huizong summoned his son to the palace and ordered him to become emperor on January 18, but Qinzong refused and was only enthroned the next day, on *19 January 1126* (7th year of Huizong's Xuanhe era, 12th month, xinyou 辛酉 day). [Original Chinese, from History of Song, chapter 23: 宣和七年十二月戊午，除開封牧。庚申，徽宗詔皇太子嗣位，自稱曰道君皇帝，趣太子 入禁中，被以御服。泣涕固辭，因得疾。又固辭，不許。辛酉，即皇帝位，御垂拱殿見羣臣。] This means that Mote is the only source that gives us a western date for Qinzong's enthronement, but it's the wrong date!
      • Should the Mote citation be kept?--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think so, yes, but maybe by switching the order of the sentence to say that "On January 28, Huizong abdicated and left the throne to his son Emperor Qinzong." That way we get the date of Huizong's abdication right, and we follow the right sequence of events. Speaking of sequence, I think Huizong's abdication should be mentioned at the end of the paragraph, not at the beginning, because it was the result of Huizong's deliberation with his counselors, which you explain in the paragraph. Madalibi (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Madalibi (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another clarification needed: speaking of the progression of the Jin eastern army, the "Siege of Taiyuan" section claims that They easily took Yanjing in 1125, where the general Guo Yaoshi had switched his allegiances to the Jin. One paragraph lower, the narrative has moved on to 1226 and we hear that In that same year, the Jurchens captured the former Khitan Southern Capital, modern Beijing, which had been handed to the Song after the defeat of the Liao. But wasn't Yanjing the former Khitan Southern Capital? Could you clarify please? Madalibi (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on the first siege of Kaifeng.
    • Franke 1994:229 and Mote 1999:196 claim that the siege of Kaifeng was lifted on 10 February 1126. Lorge 2005:53 says March 5. Levine 2009:639 says 10th day of the 2nd month. Could you clarify what happened? I can check the primary sources if needed. Madalibi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This problem remains to be addressed! Madalibi (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: the date given by Levine ("10th day of the 2nd month") corresponds to 5 March 1126 in the Julian calendar, which is also the date given in Lorge. And I checked the primary sources: History of Jin (HoJ) ch. 3 and History of Song (HoS) ch. 23. HoJ states that the Song court first agreed to the terms proposed by the Jin (cession of three prefectures, payments, etc.) and that the siege was lifted on February 10 (this is the date mentioned by Franke and Mote). HoS doesn't mention that. It seems in any case that the Jin army didn't leave right away. HoJ and HoS agree that on the night of Feb. 24 the Song tried to attack the Jin encampment but was defeated. This is the failed ambush our text is talking about. HoS: on Feb. 25 the emperor fired Li Gang (the official who had advocated the attack). HoJ: the next day the Jin besieged Kaifeng again. (The resuming of the siege is not mentioned in HoS, which seems to assume that the siege was never lifted in the first place.) After some more talks, the Song agreed again to the same terms. Both HoJ and HoS say that the Jin armies left Kaifeng on March 4. I think this clarifies what happened, though we do see that both sides recorded this event differently. Madalibi (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think They botched an ambush against the Jin that was carried out at night, and were replaced with officials who supported negotiating for peace and the defeat of a Song army near Kaifeng pushed Qinzong into meeting the Jurchen demands refer to the same failed attack on Jin forces by Li Gang, yet they are presented as consecutive events. Madalibi (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved (narrative continuity and other issues)
  • Comment on narrative continuity. At the end of the "first siege of Kaifeng" we read that a Jin army arrived in Kaifeng in December 1126. In the following section, on the "second siege of Kaifeng", we go back to general Song preparations and we hear that the Jin "launched a second military expedition." But this is the very expedition, launched in early September 1126, that led to the fall of Taiyuan (discussed two sections above) and to the arrival of armies near Kaifeng (mentioned in the previous section). This means we lose the chronological thread by going back in time again! One solution would be to divide the Jin campaigns into "First campaign" (December 1125-March 1126) and "Second campaign" (September 1126-January 1127). That way you would avoid presenting the fall of Taiyuan (Sept. 1126) before the first siege of Kaifeng (Jan. 1126) and the launching of the second campaign (Sept. 1126) after the arrival of Jin armies near Kaifeng (Dec. 1126). Once again, the goal is to avoid confusion by presenting events in strict chronological order. Madalibi (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One way of justifying a division between first and second Jin campaigns would be this sentence from Ari Levine's article on the reigns of Huizong and Qinzong (2009:615): Concluding peace at any price in 1126, the Sung extricated itself from its first war with the Chin only to have its diplomatic incompetence provoke a second, fatal conflict. He is referring to the peace treaty of 1126 following the first siege of Kaifeng, and to the fatal conflict that led to the capture of both Huizong and Qinzong. Madalibi (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the second siege of Kaifeng. We have the following sentences: The Song did not dispose of the corpses of those who had died during the siege. Morale among the Song soldiers declined as the siege continued. Coming right after the Jin's launching a second military expedition (presumably in Sept. 1126, though the date is not indicated), the context in which these two sentences make sense is unclear. The source cited (Lorge 2005:53) is clearer: On 9 January the Jurchens took advantage of a great snowfall to overwhelm the city's defenders. In an initial assault on the walls with three siege towers, the Jurchen suffered more than 3,000 dead and the defenders only about 300 killed and wounded. But the Jurchens collected and concealed their dead, while the Song left their dead and wounded atop the wall. The remaining defenders were completely demoralized, and when the Jurchen renewed their assault, they broke.. Could you clarify? Madalibi (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the capitulation of Kaifeng. The city did not capitulate on 9 January 1127, the date when its walls were breached and the Jurchen started looting. As Levine (2009:642) has it, Qinzong officially capitulated on the second day of the last month of "1126" (Jingkang 1/12/2), that is, 16 January 1127. Madalibi (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the status of the captive emperors. The text says they "lived the rest of their lives as commoners" (Mote 1999:197). It's true that they were first demoted to the rank of commoners, but they were eventually given minor titles and allowed to live more comfortably (says Franke 1994: 232–33). Madalibi (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now fixed, I have included the treatment of the captives. However, the initial titles they were given were meant to insult them. The former emperors were enfeoffed as marquises (hou) with the insulting titles (Muddled Virtue) and C'hung-hun (Double Muddled). Huizong did not receive a genuine honorary title until after his death. Hui-tsung received the posthumonous rank of prince of T'ien-shui chun Qinzong was treated better, but only after Huizong had died.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by Madalibi

[edit]
Resolved (Northern Song and early Southern Song)

Good job on solving the previous issues! Here are some more I've noticed, though I'm starting to run out of time, here...

  • On "Nanjing". "Nanjing" 南京 means literally "Southern Capital". When Huizong, and later Gaozong, fled to the Song southern capital southeast of Kaifeng (still in modern Henan), it was called Yingtianfu 應天府 (Levine 2009:643). The Jin later called it Guide prefecture (Guide fu 歸德府), which ironically is the same city the last Jin emperor fled to in 1233 after the Mongol siege of Kaifeng, a few months before he proceeded to Caizhou (Franke 1994:264). Anyway, calling that place "Nanjing" is confusing, because the much-better known Nanjing (which became the "southern capital" of the Ming dynasty after they moved their main capital to Beijing), is a whole different city. Madalibi (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many unclear points in the southern flight of the Song court and surrounding sections. I realize that the secondary sources use different dating systems, different Romanizations, and even different names for the same places, but I still find these sections messy. Once again, a few specific explanations and a strict chronological order should solve most of our problems, but there's a lot of work to do! Since you seem to have the Song volume of the Cambridge History of China handy, I recommend you use Tao Jing-shen's article on Gaozong for the events as a new detailed source concerning post-1127 events like Yue Fei's campaigns, the Treaty of Shaoxing, and the campaigns of Prince Hailing.
    • The future emperor managed to evade the Jurchen troops tailing him by moving from one province to the next. Where was he to begin with?
    • Xingzai: Chinese characters?
    • Enthronement of Gaozong: mentioned redundantly both at the beginning and at the end of the first paragraph.
    • The Jurchens approached Hangzhou in 1130 and pillaged the city. The court returned in 1133. But we also hear that Hangzhou was declared the capital of the Song in 1132. Was the recently pillaged city declared the capital while the court was away?
    • Similarly, we read that Hangzhou was pillaged in 1130 (first paragraph of "Wars with the Southern Song"), yet was chosen in 1132 for the natural barriers that surrounded it, including lakes and rice paddies, which made it more difficult for the Jurchen cavalry to breach Hangzhou's fortifications. Not sure this makes sense: would the court choose a city because it was out of reach from the Jurchen cavalry right after it had been looted by the Jurchen cavalry. Clarify?
    • Once again the chronological narrative is interrupted, either by redundancies or by the artificial separation of things that belong together:
      • I think the last two paragraphs of "the second siege of Kaifeng" belong after an explanation of the fall of the northern Song, probably at the beginning of the southern Song section. In addition to restoring the chronological thread, you could then explain why we find two very different kinds of statements after the fall of Kaifeng: The Jin Dynasty did not expect or desire the fall of the Northern Song Dynasty. Their intention was to weaken the Song in order to demand more tribute, and they were unprepared for the magnitude of their victory. And 3 paragraphs lower: The Jin sought to completely destroy the Song after their victory at Kaifeng. This is not necessarily a contradiction, but right now the two statements are too far apart to be reconciled.
      • Zhang Bangchang's suicide. It sounds very implausible that he would have listened to the Song court's order to commit suicide after accepting to become a puppet ruler in the first place! The article on Gaozong in the CHC volume on the Song says that Zhang was actually executed at the behest of Li Gang (the same guy who had attacked Jin encampments during the first siege of Kaifeng) after he submitted to Gaozong, who was still in north China. One more reason why we need to know more about Gaozong's whereabouts right after the fall of Kaifeng.
      • We read that Hangzhou was named the Song capital in 1132, but only in the next section do we hear that it was raided by the Jurchens two years earlier.
      • The Jin advance stopped at the Yangtze River, but the Jurchens continued to stage raids against Song settlements further south (in section on the "southern retreat of the Song court"). After the fall of Kaifeng in 1127, Jurchen forces continued to cross the Yangtze River and invade southern China (in the section on "wars with the southern Song"). Should be in one place.
      • The continuing insurgency in northern China hampered the Jurchen campaigns south of the Yangtze (wars with the southern Song). But the section on the "second siege of Kaifeng" had A number of Song commanders, stationed in towns scattered across northern China, retained their allegiance to the Song, and militias were organized by armed volunteers opposing the Jurchen military presence. The insurgency slowed the southern advance of the Jin Dynasty. These statements belong together.

This is a lot of work, and I'm not sure I have time to continue reading so closely when every section suffers from this kind of narrative disorder. Could you skim the rest of the text and then go through every section slowly with your sources in hand to identify other similar problems before we go on? Cheers! Madalibi (talk)

  • The organization of the article was, from the outset, based on thematic and not chronological sequence. This does create some repetition in the article, so changing it to the latter is a good idea. I'll work on the article, cross-checking Franke's and Coblin's dates and narrative with Levine's and Tao's. One of the problems that I have faced, and that you can attest to, is that my sources sometimes contradict each other!--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new round of comments

[edit]
More resolved issues

I'm now moving to the second large section, on Jin wars with the Southern Song. Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty#The enthronement of Emperor Gaozong looks fine, so straight to the next section called Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty#The move south:

  • "riding down the Grand Canal": could you make it clearer that they were on boats? :)
  • The events in that section are not presented in chronological order. It's the secondary sources' fault, because they get two very important dates wrong: Tao (2009:650) says that Gaozong moved his capital to Yangzhou in late 1128 (it was actually 1127), and Franke claims that Liu Yu was proclaimed emperor of the Great Qi in late 1129 (it was actually late 1130). Because of that, the sequence of events gets messed up. Let's take them one by one:
    • [Not an issue, but premise to the next points.] Move to Yangzhou: I specified the date of the move to Yangzhou as "late 1127", which is the date given in Mote. Tao (2009:650) says 1128, but this is wrong. The History of Song confirms that Gaozong left Yingtianfu on 6 Nov. 1127 and reached Yangzhou on 2 Dec. 1127.
    • The Jin troops moved rapidly. By the time Gaozong was at Yangzhou, the Jurchens had advanced to the Huai River. Tao (2009:650) says that the Jin vanguard reached the outskirts of Yangzhou in early 1129, but this was more than a year after the court's move, so the speed of the Jin army is exaggerated. (Once again Tao is to blame because he just said that Gaozong moved to Yangzhou in late 1128.)
    • The court spent over a year in the city before moving to Hangzhou in 1129. It should be made clear that they moved to Hangzhou in quite a hurry precisely because of the Jin raid of early 1129 (see Tao 2009:650).
    • In that same year, the Song army vacated Kaifeng, allowing the Jin to capture the city. Not super important, but you could specify that Kaifeng was vacated in the summer (sixth lunar month: here June or July) of 1129, which was a few months after the Song court fled to Hangzhou (see Tao 2009:654). Tao (p. 657) , however, claims that the city was only captured in the second (lunar) month of 1130.
    • Jurchen forces continued across the Yangtze River, and staged raids against Song settlements in the south. As far as I could determine (though I may be wrong), in early 1129 the Jin army retreated without raiding south of the Yangzi. They came back to do that in late 1129. Speaking of which...
  • Tao 2009:654 says "In the late summer of 1129 Chin forces were preparing for a decisive assault against the south." This entire campaign, which lasted from late 1129 to June 1130 and almost ended up in the capture of Gaozong, is missing from the text. One Jin army went deep into Jiangxi and even into Hunan and then looped back north through Hubei. Meanwhile the main Jin army, led by Wanyan Wuzhu (aka Zongbi), went straight for the Song emperor. It crossed the Huai River and in less than a month it had reached Hangzhou, then Shaoxing, then Ningbo, closely following the emperor's trail. Gaozong took the boat and escaped in February 1130. After he abandoned pursuit, Wuzhu went back to Hangzhou and pillaged it in March. He started to be challenged by Song armies in April, and was even defeated once by Han Shizhong, who should definitely appear somewhere in the text. On 1 June 1130, Wuzhu managed to cross back to the north bank of the Yangzi River. Only in September 1130, after the end of the whole invasion, did the Jin declare the foundation of the Great Qi. These events are clearly presented in Tao 2009: 653-659. They could actually be narrated in one short paragraph just like I did here.
  • This comment by Tao Jing-shen on the "Great Qi" should probably be integrated somewhere: "These armies of Da Qi carried the burden of much of the fighting from 1130 to 1138." (Tao 2009: 658)
  • Jin campaigns in western China (Tao 2009: 659-660) probably deserve quick mention.
    • To be clear, by this I'm not referring to the Jin invasion of Jiangxi in 1129-1130, but to fights that took place further west in Sichuan. The main Song general there was Zhang Jun 張浚 (1097–1164; not to be confused with the homophonous Zhang Jun 張俊 [1086–1154] who defended the Lower Yangzi). Tao 2009:660 says that "in 1131–2 the main military operations between the Sung and the Chin continued in the western theater." These operations are not mentioned in the article. Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason for the choice of Hangzhou as capital: I see that you cite Tao (2009:696) to explain why Gaozong chose Hangzhou as his capital after 1132 (incidentally not 1133!). The same Tao (2009:661-2) has a few more interesting things to say about why and when Hangzhou was chosen.

As you said yourself, the secondary sources are often contradictory, but I think we can disentangle them and finish this FA review successfully in the next few days! All best, Madalibi (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up questions also resolved

Follow-up on the above comments. This section is much improved, thank you! Could you push that effort further to resolve a few remaining issues?

  • What happened when the Jurchens renewed their attacks on the Song in 1127? The next thing we hear about them is that they reached the Huai River in 1129: how about the two years in between? (One or two sentences should be enough.)
  • When the Jurchens advanced to the Huai River,[61] the court moved to Hangzhou in 1129. The sources I've read say that Gaozong fled almost alone, on horseback, a few hours before Jin troops reached Yangzhou, which they could have done only at least a day or two after crossing the Huai River. Mote 1999:295-96 has a vivid account of Gaozong's hasty flight, with more specific dates.
  • In that same year [1129], the Song army vacated Kaifeng, allowing the Jin to capture the city in the following year. Jurchen forces continued across the Yangtze River, and staged raids against Song settlements in the south. Several points:
    • as it Song armies or just the main Song official there (Zong Ze) who vacated Kaifeng? (I'm not sure myself.)
      • It was Du Chong who withdrew, not Zong Ze. Tao 2009:654 says that In the sixth month, Tsung Tse's mediocre successor, Tu Ch'ung decided to withdraw from the formal capital Kaifeng. He also says that this was despite the protest of his generals, especially Yue Fei, which implies but does not explicitly confirm a military withdrawal. --Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the Jin captured Kaifeng in March or April 1130 (the second month of 4th year of Gaozong's "Jianyan" reign era) and they neared Hangzhou (much further south) in January 1130, the text's suggestion that they continued south after capturing Kaifeng is misleading.
    • The Jin attack in February 1129 that almost caught the Song emperor in Yangzhou can probably be called a raid. But later Jin attacks south of the Yangzi were more than raids. At the end of 1129 or early 1130 (eleventh month of the Chinese year: 13 Dec. 1129 – 11 Jan. 1130), the Jin invaded with two large armies, including one led by a Jin imperial prince. These campaigns are still not well described (see long paragraph of my previous comments above).
  • The paragraph on the Da Qi is in the wrong place, because the Da Qi was founded in late 1130, after the end of the Jin campaigns that are described in the following paragraph.
  • When the Jin forces neared Hangzhou on January 26, 1130, the Song court fled on ships to islands off the coast of Zhejiang, and later to the city of Shaoxing. The Jin sent ships to chase after Gaozong, but failed to catch him and gave up the pursuit. The Jurchens plundered Hangzhou and departed. The flight to Shaoxing is in the wrong place. Gaozong did flee there, but at the beginning of his retreat, not after fleeing to islands off Zhejiang. His "flight route" in early 1130 was Hangzhou-Shaoxing-Ningbo-Zhoushan Islands-Taizhou-Wenzhou. He came back to Zhoushan and then Shaoxing in May 1130, after the Jin armies had left (see Mote 1999:298).
  • The Jin had been caught off guard by the strength of the Song navy, and withdrew from the Yangtze River front. This sentence makes little sense on its own. In Tao 2009:655, a similar statement comes after a long paragraph explaining how Jin armies had difficulties crossing back to the north bank of the Yangzi River. These battles (some of which the Song won) are not mentioned in our section.
  • There are 18 sentences (in three paragraphs) on how Hangzhou became the new Song capital and on how it fared during the Southern Song. Only a few of these sentences are relevant to the military campaigns that are the main topic of this wiki. Would you agree to cutting about half of them?

I'll stop here for now! Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More resolved issues

All right, almost there! Happy Holidays everybody! Madalibi (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by Madalibi (2)

[edit]
Also resolved

Comments on the Da Qi or "Great Qi":

  • Date of its creation. The secondary sources are once again not very clear on this. Franke (1994:230) says that Liu Yu was "appointed as emperor of great Qi" "toward the end of 1129". Tao (2009:657) is a bit ambiguous but seems to point to 1130: "Liu Yu secured Wanyan Zonghan's backing and, at the end of 1129, the Jin emperor's permission to set up another puppet state in 1130, called Da Qi (Great Qi), with Liu Yu as its emperor". Lorge (2005:55) doesn't mention a date. Once again they're each getting one side of the story. After Liu Yu submitted to the Jin in 1128, in March or April 1129 (third lunar month) he was put in charge of a number of prefectures in northern China (History of Song [HoS], chapter 475, in Liu Yu's biography). The HoS says that the Jin did so after hearing that Gaozong had crossed the Yangxi River [from Yangzhou on his way to Hangzhou]. But only on 12 October 1130 (Jianyan 4/9/9) was Liu Yu enthroned as emperor (HoS, ch. 475, p. 13794). The History of Jin (HoJ, ch. 3, p. 62) gives the exact same date. This means that Franke is wrong, and that until October 1130, Liu Yu was only a regular Han Chinese official serving the Jin.
  • Place in the text. Right now the creation of the Great Qi is discussed in the third paragraph of the section called "The move south" and again in the second paragraph of the "Song counteroffensive" section. I think these two paragraphs would belong better together. Even the last sentence of the first one (It was responsible for supplying a large portion of the troops that fought the Song in the eight years following its creation) and the first sentence of the second one (Da Qi invaded the Song in 1133 supported by the Jin) seem to be perfect for a smooth transition.
  • Proposal: I propose to regroup the formation of the Qi state and the campaigns in which Qi troops were involved under its own section between "The move south" and "Song counteroffensive". The section would go from late 1130 (formation of the Da Qi) to one of four dates (you be the judge): 1134 (beginning of Yue Fei's military success), 1135 (death of Jin Taizong), 1137 (dissolution of the Da Qi), or 1138 (beginning of a strong Song counteroffensive and of the peace process at the same time). Advantages of such a move: (1) The Qi troops did most of the fighting for the Jin (says Tao 2009:658), so devoting a section to the Qi seems to make sense. (2) The structure would be improved, as most of the material on the Great Qi would be presented in a single place and chronologically. (3) The two current sections ("The move south" and "Song counteroffensive") are pretty long already, so an extra section in the middle borrowing text from both would cut the article into more manageable chunks.

What do you think? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Comments on "Cultural and demographic changes"[reply]

  • This entire section is devoted to the Jin. For the sake of both balance and completeness, which are important criteria for featured articles, you should find something to say about the Song as well.
  • This would be a nice place to put the comments on Hangzhou that are (or used to be) in "The move south"!
  • The capital of the Jin Dynasty was moved to the south from Manchuria to Beijing in 1153. Watch out for the passive voice. Someone must have moved the capital for specific reasons, but the passive hides the agent. The capital was actually moved by Prince Hailing in the context of the reforms you discuss in the next two paragraphs. In 1157 he even razed the palaces of Jurchen nobles in the former capital to force them to move south (Franke 1994: 240). Discussing all these changes together would make things clearer.
  • The theme of "China among equals" should probably appear somewhere. Unlike the Han and Tang and later the Ming and Qing, who had a number of tributary states, the Song was a tributary of other powers like the Liao, the Jin, and then the Mongols. There's an edited book called "China Among Equals" (by Morris Rossabi), and "China Among Equals" is a chapter title in Patricia Ebrey et al., East Asia: A cultural, Social, and Political History, a widely used textbook. No need to call it "China Among Equals" just like them. The point is that China at the time was either equal or inferior to its surrounding states, and Jin campaigns directly fed into that trend.

Madalibi (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by vctrbarbieri

[edit]
  • Just wondering about how Da Qi was the second puppet state created (in the Da Qi invades the Song section). Wondering if Chu was the first one and if so that should be clearer. E.g. "the Jin decided to create Da Qi, their second attempt at a puppet state in northern China". "The Jin allowed more autonomy for the Qi then they had for the Chu". Vctrbarbieri (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added "their second attempt at a" from the former example so it doesn't imply there is another puppet state in North China that also exists at the same time. You also added a reference to the state of Great Chu so now I think the Da Qi section fully works. You have my Support. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madalibi's last comments

[edit]

One last round, almost all on the recently enhanced "Song revanchism" and "Song-Jin war during the rise of the Mongols" sections. Almost there!

After these issues are solved, I will be glad to give my formal support to this spectacular article! Madalibi (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave the article a thorough last reading. I made a large number of small edits to correct footnote formats, remove duplicate links and some passive voices, add language templates, etc., solving as many issues as possible on my own. There are a few remaining issues I wanted to submit here:
  • The source "Ebrey 1999" cited in note 173 has no equivalent entry in the bibliography.
  • One section says that the Jin never tried to cross the Yangtze River again after 1130, but we read that Prince Hailing did just that in 1161.
  • The section on the Treaty of Shaoxing says that peace was broken twice after 1142, yet there are three more campaigns in the article.
  • Needham (1987:156) mentions two different huopao: one is a trebuchet firing burning projectiles (火砲), another one is an explosive bomb (火礮): which one are we talking about here?
Ok that's it! Considering the nominator's fast and effective work on all my previous comments, I wholeheartedly Support the FA nomination. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

Well this has been a marathon but I think the additional time we've given it to achieve consensus has been worthwhile, so thanks all for your efforts; some housekeeping for Khanate:

I had somehow skipped the infobox. :) Two Three dates in there need to be adjusted: 1141 should be changed to 1142 (the year of the Treaty of Shaoxing), and 1164 to 1165 (the Longxing Treaty), and 1216–1219 to 1217–1221. 1142, 1165, and 1217–1221 are the dates indicated in the article. Khanate: do install those two scripts if you have not already. Since Ian Rose taught them to me a year ago in my first FAC review, they've proven immensely useful! And if I may incidentally ask Ian: do you have another nifty tool for detecting dablinks? Finally, thank you, Khanate, for writing this article! As I realized when I re-read the secondary sources, it was quite a difficult task, and I learned a lot during this review. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The toolbox at the top right of this page for the dab checker -- "Disambig links"... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! First the infobox, and now this. My blind spot must be on the top right. :-) Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dates in the infobox have now been fixed. They come from the Chinese Wikipedia article, and it was my mistake that I didn't double check them.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Rose and Maladibi. I'm new to scripts, but these tools will come in handy.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 05:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Simon Burchell, Nikkimaria, Quadell, Dank, Ian Rose, Curly Turkey, Vctrbarbieri, and especially Madalibi for your work reviewing the article!--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome, Khanate. Let me know the next time you open a FAC review, and I'll be glad to help again! Madalibi (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jin_campaigns_against_the_Song_Dynasty/archive1&oldid=1138464624"