Knowledge

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)
    • Thank you, that issue has been fully addressed now. – Quadell 23:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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 Knowledge articles.--Khanate General (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Now fixed. The Treaty of Shaoxing has been named in the lead.
  • I've expanded on the Alliance Conducted at Sea in the background of the article, increasing it to a full paragraph. The alliance had been discussed in the article, just not named.--Khanate General (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, okay, great. This issue is now resolved. – Quadell 23:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I am impressed with the recent additions, and hopeful that the issue on coverage of battles can be resolved. – Quadell 23:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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 Knowledge like to read, if nothing else. For these readers' sake, most captions could be made more accurate, more informative, or both:

• File:MongolHuntersSong.jpg: the Chinese explanation on Wikimedia Commons says that this painting dates to the Five Dynasties, that is, the period that preceded the Song. The current caption "A Song Dynasty painting of Khitan hunters" is therefore incorrect, though I understand that it's based on the equally incorrect English-language description on Commons. It would also be nice to explain to the readers why this painting is used here.
  • I tried to track down the origin of the image, but all the pictures of the painting on the internet lead back to Knowledge. It was first uploaded by a Bulgarian editor on the English Knowledge, who purchased the photograph from a private company, so it's equally likely that the Chinese-language description is incorrect. There's no way of ascertaining the provenance of the image without contacting the original uploader, User:Kosigrim, who hasn't edited Knowledge since 2008.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I did a little more digging. A letter on the Falcon Heritage Trust site claims that it was painted by the Khitan artist Hu Gui, in the 9th or 10th century. The painting is owned by the National Palace Museum in Taiwan.--Khanate General ☪ talk 09:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The painting can be tracked through its Chinese name: 五代 ("Five dynasties") 胡瓌 ("Hu Gui," perhaps Hugui, the name of the painter, who was reputedly Khitan) 出獵圖 ("Going out for a hunt," the title). The original is kept at the Taipei Palace Museum. This page from the museum's electronic archives and this discussion in Chinese confirm the date and authorship. Madalibi (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Wanyan Wuqimai.jpg: a temple name like "Taizong" has to belong to a dynasty, not an ethnic group. "Jin emperor Taizong" would therefore be preferable to "Jurchen emperor Taizong." It is also worth mentioning that this is a purely modern statue of Taizong, not a statue from that period. This is for readers who are used to seeing sculptures of Roman emperors or French kings that were made by artists who could see their subject.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Huizong.jpg: the caption reads "Emperor Huizong abdicated as the Jurchen army approached Kaifeng": add date of his abdication and link to Emperor Huizong? This is actually a Song-era painting.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Songgaozong.jpg: Emperor Gaozong supported negotiating a peace treaty with the Jurchens: same as above.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Battleofzhuxiancounty.jpg: this is either a Qing-era (19th century?) painting, or something even more recent. This fact needs to be mentioned.
  • Now fixed, linked to Summer Palace. I tried to track down the date for the mural when the article was nominated for GA and the issue was raised, but not much turned up. A link to Summer Palace will have to do for now. I did find a source for when the murals of the Summer Palace were painted, but not for this by itself.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Jurchen woodblock print.png: this woodblock print appears in a Ming-dynasty book dated 1609. Is represents how a seventeenth-century Chinese would have seen a Jurchen warrior, but is it representative of what Jurchen men would have looked like almost 500 years earlier? I'm not sure, and that's why the date of the print needs to be mentioned. If you need a reference for the date and the text of the original caption, see Shunzhi Emperor#Historical background.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Bushell Juchen 21.jpg: this image is missing a public domain tag for the United States.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Chinese Fire Lance with Pellets.JPG: the significance of this image should be mentioned in the caption, otherwise the reader will just see a weapon and have to guess at why it is pictured here. Again, this is a Ming representation, in this case probably early 15th century. An additional caption like "the first recorded use of such a weapon dates to" or something would solve both issues.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

What did you think of the alternative titles that I proposed in the talk?--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

I support the move. It's shorter than the current one.--Khanate General ☪ talk 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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.
  • Now fixed. The page numbers and chapter titles have been included. The Mote ISBN is for the 2003 paperback and not the 1999 hardcover.--Khanate General ☪ talk 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I changed the date back to 1999. Unless you used a newer edition (not a new printing), the date of a book should be the date of its original publication. In other words the date of a book that first came out in hardcover shouldn't change when it is later printed in paperback. Of course if the 2003 paperback printing turns out to be a new edition, then I'm wrong! In that event, let's indicate "Second edition" somewhere in the bibliographical entry, and I will change all the footnotes back. Madalibi (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • And good job on the other entries! Madalibi (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Levine attributes the decline of the Song to its military incompetence and lack of leadership. To continue from page 614: While the Sung armed forces were not outnumbered by their adversaries, they were ineptly commanded from the center, by an imperial court overconfident of certain victory... More than any inherent disadvantages, a lack of will and leadership caused the collapse of Northern Sung. The article does cover the incompetence of the Song leadership, The state had plentiful resources, with the exception of horses, but managed its assets poorly during battles, but the details should be expanded. I'll work on it right now.--Khanate General ☪ talk 02:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem has now been fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 03:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, the new additions are fine. Madalibi (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Now fixed. The background for the Sixteen Prefectures has been provided.--Khanate General ☪ talk 05:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Now fixed. The paragraph has been placed further down the article, and there's a longer description about the Song war with the Liao.--Khanate General ☪ talk 06:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, this much better, thank you! Madalibi (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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!)
    • Now fixed. Omitted entirely, Tong Guan's fate is better left to his own article, or to History of the Song Dynasty.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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?
    • Now fixed. The Liao Southern Capital was looted by the Jurchens, handed over to the Song, and then captured again by the Jurchens.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "By December": the text seems to imply this is 1126, but I think it's 1125.
    • This is what the source says, In January of 1126, the Jurchen army overran Song defenses and besieged Taiyuan. The other Jurchen army captured two Song prefectures in December, smashed a Song army in January... and then drove straight down through Hebei to the walls of Kaifeng. It may mean the end of 1125 and January of 1126.--Khanate General ☪ talk 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Now fixed. It was the end of 1125 and January of 1126.--Khanate General ☪ talk 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • 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 , 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)
        • How did Mote get the March 1226 date? Anyhow, if Lorge is right about the January 1126 date for the Julian calendar, then nothing needs to be changed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 17:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Now fixed. I have done so for the Siege of Taiyuan. The sequence of events is more straight forward.--Khanate General ☪ talk 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • Now fixed. Hucker's version has been replaced with Levine's.--Khanate General ☪ talk 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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?
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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). 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 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • What about the date that Mote provides? Should it be switched to January 18?--Khanate General ☪ talk 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh, yes, sorry. I forgot to mention that Huizong did leave Kaifeng on January 28, and that's probably where Mote got the date. The date of Huizong's departure (Jingkang 1.1.gengwu 庚午 day, which can be converted here) is confirmed in both History of Jin (chapter 23, p. 54 of the common Zhonghua shuju ed.) and History of Song (ch. 23, p. 423), so there shouldn't be any mistake about it. What I see is that Mote confused date of abdication and date of flight. If I were editing the article outside the scrutiny of a FAC, I would say something like this: "In January 1126, a few days before the New Year , Huizong abdicated in favor of his son. He fled Kaifeng on January 28, leaving the newly enthroned emperor Qinzong in charge." I think this manages to be accurate without falling into original research! Would that be all right? Madalibi (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
            • • That works. The sentence has been placed in the article. Thank you.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Madalibi (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Now fixed. The two have been combined, the second sentence was in an older revision of the article that should have been combined with the newer one.--Khanate General ☪ talk 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
    • This problem remains to be addressed! Madalibi (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • Now fixed. If Lorge and Levine are right about the month, but off by one day on the date, then only the day of the month needs to be redacted.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Now fixed. The sentence has been switched around.--Khanate General ☪ talk 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • Now fixed. The solution I went with was to divide the initial siege of Taiyuan from the fall of the city.--Khanate General ☪ talk 04:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Now done.--Khanate General ☪ talk 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Now fixed. The order of the events has been switched.--Khanate General ☪ talk 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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)
  • The modern name for the city, Shangqiu, is given in the article, but if it is confusing, we could switch it around.--Khanate General ☪ talk 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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?
    • From Coblin 2002: The Southern Court settled in Hangzhou in 1129... this place was formally declared the new capital in 1132. I'll check other sources to verify the accuracy of Coblin's statement--Khanate General ☪ talk 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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?
    • Same problem as above. Coblin gives 1132 as the date for the establishment, but he could be wrong. I'll check my other sources.--Khanate General ☪ talk 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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.
      • From Franke 1994: He was killed, or rather forced to commit suicide, on the order of the Song court. This showed that Chin domination was by no means absolute. Now fixed, context is important, and I have provided it with more details from Tao 2009.--Khanate General ☪ talk 05:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • 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 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've been reading the secondary sources closely, and I've also found contradictions. Once again, outstanding job in addressing the issues! Madalibi (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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? :)
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 05:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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:
  • 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.
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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.)
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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).
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Now fixed. Expanded with the entire eastern campaign and the capture of Jiankang.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 09:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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 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)
    • Doesn't Tao state that the Jin never penetrated Sichuan? Tao 2009:660: Unable to penetrate Szechwan, Wan-yan Wuchu himself returned to headquarters in Yen-ching. Zhang Jun was in command of Sichuan and Shaanxi, but fought the Jin near Xi'an. In the following campaign between 1132 and 1134, the Jin invaded Shaanxi and Hubei, but were halted at Xianren Pass before they reached Sichuan.--Khanate General ☪ talk 16:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Now fixed. Expanded with the 1131-1132 campaign and the 1132-1134 campaign.--Khanate General ☪ talk 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.)
  • I took care of this one by mentioning that they regained control of northern China. Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• When the Jurchens advanced to the Huai River, 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.
  • Two days before Gaozong departed on February 23, Mote 1999:295 says that Some courtiers nevertheless were ordered to proceed south with the emperor's infant son and others of the imperial household, to take up residence at Hangzhou. It was not the entire court, but some members had already left for Hangzhou prior to Gaozong's own escape.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It's true that the court left before the emperor, but an emperor fleeing alone on horseback is in my view a much more notable event! No need to get into the details as Mote does, but this kind of unique event should be mentioned. Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 17:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• In that same year , 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 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Now fixed. In the older revision of the article, it was stated that the invasion south happened in 1129, after the Song withdrew from Kaifeng, but a newer edit that brought up Kaifeng's capture in 1130 messed up the sequence of events.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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).
    • Now fixed. Expanded with both the western and eastern offensives of the Jin campaign.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Now fixed. Placed below the Jin campaigns.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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).
  • Now fixed, corrected to Wenzhou.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Now fixed. Expanded with Han Shizong's battle on the Yangzi.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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?
  • Now fixed. The economic growth of Hangzhou has been cut from the article.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

• Comments on General Yue Fei's counteroffensive, Further campaigns, and Rise of the Mongols
  • I think this section is too centered on Yue Fei. It recounts his background in more detail than for any other people mentioned in the article, then analyzes his legend for an entire paragraph, and the account of Jin-Song battles between 1131 and 1140 is entirely centered around him, as if he had been the only Song general involved. The paragraph on his legend says this was not the case, but the article still does not present anybody else. Yue Fei's role was important, but I don't think he deserves the entire section for himself!
    • The paragraphs on Yue Fei's background and modern legacy have been cut from the article.--Khanate General ☪ talk 13:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Now fixed. Expanded with the roles of Han Shizong, Zhang Jun, Liu Qi, and Yang Qizhong.--Khanate General ☪ talk 15:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • How would the section pan out if it were renamed "The Song counteroffensive"?
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 13:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Things that get neglected: a peace proposal agreed upon by both sides in 1138; all the battles won by other Song generals than Yue Fei; Gaozong's constant pushing for peace from the time he sacked Li Gang in 1127 to when he signed the Treaty of Shaoxing in 1142; and the role of Qin Gui at the Song court.
    • Now fixed. Expanded with the battles won by Han Shizong, Yang Qizong, and others, Gaozong's planning a Song counteroffensive and then cancelling it for peace negotiations, and the career of Qin Gui and his role in Yue Fei's execution.--Khanate General ☪ talk 15:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Huainan ("south of Huai") is usually the generic name of the region between the Huai River and the Yangzi River. Are you sure it is a city?
    • Now fixed. It's circuits, not city, and there were technically two, Huainan East and Huainan West.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hailingwang means literally "Prince Hailing", and this is how both Mote and Tao call him. He was an emperor, but I don't think he can be called Emperor Hailing.
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 11:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Prince Hailing should probably be introduced in some way before we hear that he began an invasion in 1161. This sounds a little too abrupt.
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The war did not end in December 1161. According to Tao (p. 707), it ended when the new Jin emperor ordered his armies "to withdraw from the Yangzi front" in early 1162, and "fighting went on in both Huainan and Sichuan until a peace treaty was negotiated in 1165."
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • To be complete, you should probably integrate information from Richard Davis's article on the reigns of Guangzong and Ningzong into the section on "Song revanchism".
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The section on the "Rise of the Mongols" seems too short. Davis's article has almost four pages on the Jin campaigns against the Song, which took place on a very large scale and on several fronts from 1217 to 1220. In an article on Song–Jin relations we could remain vague, but in this wiki on the Song–Jin wars, I think we need more details on the campaigns themselves.
    • Now fixed. Expanded with all three campaigns between the Jin and the Song.--Khanate General ☪ talk 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Even if the "Rise of the Mongols" section ends with the defeat of both the Jin and the Song at the hands (or under the hoofs) of the Mongols, it should focus on conflicts between Jin and Song, and should probably have another title.
    • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think all three sections should contain the names of more protagonists. A wiki on French wars in the seventeenth century could not conceivably fail to mention Mazarin, the Cardinal Richelieu, and Louis XIII, yet the text rarely mentions which emperor was in power during many of the Song-Jin conflicts, and which influential prime minister was dictating policy at the Song court. I've mentioned Qin Gui and the missing generals in the section on the Song counteroffensive. We also need to hear about Han Tuozhou in the section on Song revanchism (he is referred to as "the Chinese minister who had instigated the war"), and about the main people involved in the 1217-1220 wars. The CHC articles contain all the necessary details, so we shouldn't have too much trouble with this. And it's all right if we get red links, since they're not forbidden in featured articles.
    • Now fixed. Qin Hui, Han Tuozhou, Bi Zaiyu, An Bing, Shi Miyuan, Emperor Lizong, Emperor Aizong, Han Shizong, Zhang Jun, and others have all been named in the article.--Khanate General ☪ talk 21:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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 , chapter 475, in Liu Yu's biography). The HoS says that the Jin did so after hearing that Gaozong had crossed the Yangxi River . 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.
  • The article cites Tao and not Franke for the year of Da Qi's creation in 1130.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Excellent idea, it has been regrouped and given its own section.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

• 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.
  • Now fixed. The Hangzhou paragraph and the paragraph on Southern Song demographics has been placed below Cultural and demographic changes. That kills two birds with one stone.--Khanate General ☪ talk 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• This would be a nice place to put the comments on Hangzhou that are (or used to be) in "The move south"!
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Now fixed. Grouped together with the rest of Hailing's changes.--Khanate General ☪ talk 12:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Now fixed. Expanded with Rossabi's "China Among Equals".--Khanate General ☪ talk 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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