Jump to content

Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

The Gelaohui Bandits of Sun Yatsen- Hui muslims supported Manchus against Dr. Sun's Gelaohui bandits

Its ironic how the Gelaohui of Dr. Sun, were notoriously anti foreign, killing foreigners, yet Arilang1234 does not say a word against them.

Arilang1234 also shows lack of knowledge about Hui muslims in China. in "Ethnicity and Politics in Republican China: The Ma Family Warlords of Gansu", by Professor Jonathan Neaman Lipman, it shows that Hui Generals like Ma Anliang supported the Qing dynasty, fighting Sun Yatsen's Gelaohui bandits. General Ma Qi, another muslim, beheaded Gelaohui thugs who tried to participate in the Xinhai Revolution. muslim troops sent Gelaohui bandit heads rolling due to the gelaohui's anti manchu revolt

Arilang1234 seems to think that Hui are anti manchu because of the Dungan Revolt- that is a myth.

Dr. Sun Yatsen's Gelaohui Bandits attacked foreign Catholic christian mission posts in Ningxia. the Gelaohui bandits were defeated by Hui General Ma Fuxiang.

Dr. Sun Yatsen was linked to the Bandit leader Bai Lang Dr. Sun and his friends admired the Bandit leader Bai Lang, and delivered weapons and ammunition to his forces Bai lang connected to Sun Yat sen

Hui muslim and Han forces resisted the Bandit Bai Lang's forces Muslims opposed the Bandit army of Bai Lang The muslims ignored the Gelaohui's call for Hui and Han to united against Manchu Qing, and the Gelaohui caused even more problem between Hui and Han Bai Lang's army murdered muslims Bai Lang's forces raped, killed, and looted muslims in Linzhou Dr. Sun linked to Gelaohui bandit gangs and thugs again

In the Yangtze, the Gelaohui rioted and attacked foreigners to "embarass" the Manchus by angering the foreigner

the Gelaohui became virurently anti Manchu and Anti muslim

The Gelaohui hated manchus, and murdered foreigners, just like the Boxers

Mongol General Shengyun sent his Qing loyalist Muslim troops loose in shaanxi to attack the revolutionary bandits General's Sheng's Muslim troops were pro manchu, and continued to fight the revolutionary banditsДунгане (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Sun Yatsen himself was classified as a bandit

Dr. Sun was classified as bandit by the Qing dynastyДунгане (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to start a separate section each time you comment? Discuss this under one heading.--res Laozi speak 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
User Дунгане, you are extremely keen to advance your "Hui people was neglected by Chinese" concept, so you came to this article and began working hard. Don't you think you are overdoing it? Sun Yatsen may have collaborate with some bandits during his revolution times, why not just talk it over in Sun Yatsen talk page? Arilang talk 22:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
That's because "Дунгане" is a Russian name for the "Hui Chinese". If he keeps on spamming the talk page with irrelevant rubbish, you guys might want to draft and ANI about blocking. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
User Bobthefish2, there is already a ANI:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boxer_Rebellion

and it looks like user Дунгане is becoming more disruptive than constructive. Arilang talk 01:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And does it matter what Sun Yatsen labeled as? He was an important nationalist leader of the Xinhai Revolution, which makes his views relevant, especially on a movement such as the Boxers. Keep it mind, while Sun Yatsen did call the Boxers "bandits" (and this is a fact that should be included in the lead), he also admired the Boxers for their "spirit of resistance".--res Laozi speak 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 pushing blatant POV, violating concensus, and refuses to talk out disputes with me before editing the article

I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.

Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro
Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons
Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric
I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.
User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [1]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here
Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".
in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removed
User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"
Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."
In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.
Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.
Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.
Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war
arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".Дунгане (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've taken some time to reply to a few of Дунгане's allegations since he insisted to have my comments on them. This is a copy of what I've written from my talk page.
Extended content
User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races- accusing them of being savage and "Barbarian".
The issue dealing with 阎崇年 is much more complicated. He published a book with very controversial views about the Manchus and the Hans. Since you don't seem to be familiar with Chinese history, I'd recommend you to read up on what 阎崇年 said and the relevant background information about the Qing and Ming dynasties. Suffice to say, the Han and all other racial minorities (including the Hui) suffered greatly under Qing rule. It was also a time when cultural identities of non-Manchus were strictly suppressed. Since the mismanagement and brutality of the Manchus was a direct reason for China to suffer a century-long period of bloodshed and poverty, it is not necessarily ridiculous to harbour a great deal of resentment towards 阎崇年's opinions.
'In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.'
The original quote did not link Qianlong's short-comings with his racial identity. I agree that Qianlong and many of the Qing emperors are intellectually-backward rulers. But so were/are Mao or George Bush. This has nothing to do with race.
'Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.'
The comment is somewhat lacking in tact, but it is also not invalid. The Manchus had committed large scale massacres when they conquered China. Would you call someone a racist if a Jew tells you "the barbaric German nazi's were evil people who committed massacres on us"?
My verdict on the complaints I spent time to evaluate is that they are ignorant and ignorable. Please refrain from making these childish allegations in the future. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 apparently thinks he can put original reasearch into the article

Quote from Arilang1234- " have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic."

Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use wikipedia as a soapbox?Дунгане (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before

User:Arilang1234 has inserted unreliable translations into articles. saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here I put the wikisource article through google translate in the link, so everyone can read it, and see that Arilang1234 either cannot read what he himself added to the wikisource article, since he created it, or is just flat out lying. I don't accuse people of lying lightly, but it appears in this case that Arilang1234 deliberately misrepresented sources.

In light of this, i think we can say that none of the translations Arilang1234 does on this talk page are reliable, and even if they were, they do not change the fact that by posting links to random websites, he is not explaining on how they are reliable sources, Arilang doesnt even seem to comprehend what a WP:RS is since he tried to use wikisource as a source!Дунгане (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate the threatening tone Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me.Дунгане (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:
Hi! I'm here to provide a third opinion, as per the request on WP:3O. Skimming through the discussion so far, the following needs to be established: 1) Weasel words need to be avoided. While it is biased to venerate the Boxers (Addendum: I am not implying that Дунгане is guilty of this, only that it exists in the article, probably added by an easlier editor), calling the Boxers "really a bunch of looters and murderers, who would chop women and children into bits and pieces" is horribly biased as well, and both should be avoided. 2) All views need to be equally presented, without giving either side more weight than the other, as per the WP:NPOV. So a simple compromise is this: State the social and economic background of the Boxers (avoiding POV labels such as "murderers" or "heroes"). Then present opinions from both sides, quoting the source from which each point of view originates. For example, to say that "the Boxers are national heroes" is POV, but to say that "the PRC considers the Boxers to be national heroes" is not. The Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic and it's natural that there will be disputes, so let's all make sure to keep it civil here.—hkr Laozi speak 04:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I never, ever edited anywhere in the article to say that the Boxers were national heroes, if you look at the article history and my edits, you will see i have inserted no such POV, on the other hand, it is arilang who is blatantly inserting POV into the article. he claimed that "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", yet i do not see anyone on this talk page who agreed to him changing the lead.Дунгане (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm new to this discussion, so I apologise for any unintended mischaracterisations! POV, from either side, needs to be removed. And the lead, regardless of who's been tinkering with it, contains weasel words which need to be removed or changed as soon as possible, as according to the WP:NPOV policy and the Manual of Style. The lead also needs a general clean-up, the phrasing and the flow between the paragraphs could be improved.--hkr Laozi speak 05:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There are some serious false equivalences in this third opinion. From following this discussion and the diffs provided, it is clear that Arilang is fighting to insert strongly held anti-Boxer views, but you can't tell Дунгане's viewpoint from his edits, as xe has properly attributed the characterizations of the Boxers that xe has added. Also, not all viewpoints should be "equally presented". If a viewpoint is a minority, revisionist, and political viewpoint, such as that the Boxers were merely "ignorant bandits", that should clearly be indicated, and the content reduced from the overwhelming overrepresentation it receives on this article. By the way, although Arilang is trying to implicate any Boxer-sympathetic viewpoints by aligning them with the PRC, as the article itself notes, modern PRC views are more ambivalent and nuanced than in the early ideological days. Quigley (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Providing a third opinion, it's inherent that I haven't been following the discussion, but I am aware of Arilang's POV. As I mentioned, the weasel words and editorialising in the lead do need to be removed, and I have not argued against that point; edits akin to "ignorant bandits" do not belong in the lead. Under the "due weight" policy, mainstream opinions should be given emphasis, but you have to admit, wording like "perverse demands" is contentious as well, and all the editorialising in the article, regardless of who they originate from, need to go. I completely agree that mainstream perspectives need to be given preference, but there are better ways to do that than by countering POV with more POV.--hkr Laozi speak 06:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, "Western, white missionaries and Chinese christians used their imperialist powers to steal the lands and property of the Chinese peasants to give to the church, and made perverse demands, which the Chinese could not resist." "steal the lands and property of the Chinese peasants to give to the church", sounds very controversial to me. Arilang talk 06:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there are NPOV problems with the wording, and the sentence does contain editorialising and contentious labels. But the correct course of action is not to add more contentious words to the article from the opposite POV, but to fix the existing content.--hkr Laozi speak 06:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it controversial that these things happened; do you have scholarship to refute it? Otherwise, it is a question of tone, and "stole" can be euphemized with some Latinate replacement like in the rest of Wikipedia, possibly with "appropriated", "expropriated", etc. Quigley (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it's better to rephrase the sentence than to add content from the opposite POV into the lead.--hkr Laozi speak 06:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As an example, one section added by Arilang, and another from an earlier editor:

  • "Chinese Imperial Army and Boxer snipers constantly killed foreigners, and Chinese artillery crushed the French settlements into dust. A Frenchman, Englishman, two americans, and George Peters were shot to death by Chinese snipers in the settlements area"
    • "Crushed... to dust" is a POV phrase. So is the use of the word "constantly", a weasel word, which is extremely vague in this context. How much is "constantly"?
  • "Western, white missionaries and Chinese christians used their imperialist powers to steal the lands and property of the Chinese peasants to give to the church, and made perverse demands, which the Chinese could not resist."
    • "Perverse demands" is another POV phrase. There are other ways to phrase this while conveying the same meaning without the same connotations.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, both of these sections need to be fixed.--hkr Laozi speak 06:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:hkr, "Reportedly the Muslim commander sat on the skin and ate the heart of the German minister von Ketteler.[34]", is this statement really needed in an Encyclopedia? Arilang talk 06:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
All I've emphasised is that NPOV problems need to be resolved by fixing the content, not by adding content with the same problems from the opposite POV. It's highly exaggerated to go from that fairly mundane suggestion, to a strawman implicating that I'm supporting some random quote selectively pulled off the article. --hkr Laozi speak 06:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
User hkr, I did not mean to imply you in any way, all I did was asking for your opinion, that is all. Arilang talk 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I won't know without context, researching it as we speak. :) --hkr (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead part 2

I understand Arilang's concerns. I've made the following changes that, while still reflecting a neutral point of view, should address any of his concerns:

  1. Nationalist > Proto-nationalist
  2. Mentioning that educated Chinese (initially!) considered the Boxers to be "ignorant" and so-called "barbarians"

Hopefully we're all happy with the lead now? Except for the length of the lead, but I'll work on that later. --res Laozi speak 02:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks user hkr, at last we have someone who is both able and "neutral" to work on this important topic. This is a very good start. Something else I would like to see on the lead:
  • (1) The Mark Twain comment is out of place, has to go.
  • (2) The Chinese Spirit possession (神打) nature of the Boxers worth at least one sentence on the lead.
  • (3) Quote:"The Boxers called foreigners "Guizi" (鬼子), a deprecatory term, and condemned Chinese Christian converts and Chinese working for Westerners[19][20] " This statement is misleading, the fact is, and it had been well documented in many books, the Boxers were into extermination and annihilation of foreigners and Chinese Christians.
  • (4) Empress Cizi openly supported and encouraged Boxer activities, which was the main reason why BR had became a national disaster.
 Arilang   talk 03:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, Cixi was forced to support the Boxers, During the war, Cixi displayed concern about China's situation and foreign aggression, saying, "Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?" The massive support of the chinese people led Cixi to support the Boxers.Joseph Esherick (1988). The origins of the Boxer Uprising. University of California Press. p. 289. ISBN 0520064593. Retrieved 2010-6-28. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
The Dowager Empress also even sent food to the foreigners, and announced a truce, stopping Prince Duan from demolishing the foriengers and killing them.
Prince Qing, a very corrupt Manchu prince, was pro foreign. he was replaced by the anti foreign Prince Duan
It was because of the illegal western invaion of Seymour, that anti foreign Prince Duan replaced the corrupt pro foreign Prince Qing.
From this, it is clear that
  1. 1, Empress Dowager Cixi was not completely pro boxer, she helped the pro foreign manchu Princes Ronglu and Qing, against the Pro Boxer prince Duan.
  1. 2, you cannot say the court supported the Boxers. original General Nie's army, under Cixi and Ronglu, and Prince Qing's orders were fighting against Boxers They were forced to change side, because Admiral Seymour invaded China, they needed to get the Boxers to attack the foreigners.
  1. 3, the muslim kansu troops under Dong Fuxiang, and Prince Zaiyi's manchu banner troops attacked the foreingers in legations, however, the corrupt Manchu prince Qing and Ronglu send their own manchu banner troops to attack Dong and Zaiyi's muslim and manchu troops, to rescue the foreigner in legations. Ronglu was close to Cixi, so this could have been on her orders. Ronglu and prince qing even send food and supplies to the foreigners in the legation while the muslim warriors were attacking the legations!
  1. 4, Ronglu blocked artillery going to the muslim troops, to stop them from destroye the foreinger. Ronglu is clearly pro foreign, this is sourced in the Ronglu article.Дунгане (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead Part 3
More changes. Trying to address the comments by both Arilang and Дунгане: (the following are responses to the specific points brought up by Arilang)

  1. I strongly disagree, the Mark Twain comment needs to stay. I've already shortened it, but it should be in there. Since this is a conflict between China and the West, it is important that Western perspectives be included in the lead too. The lead can't purely consist of Chinese views.
  2. I've edited it so that "claiming supernatural invulnerability towards blows" links to the Chinese spirit possession article.
  3. That's already included: "targeting mission compounds". "Extermination" and "annihilation" are words to avoid (under the Manual of Style), but if you'd like, I've reworded it to "violently targeting Christian mission compounds" to make it clearer.
  4. The Boxers initially fought against the Qing. That the Qing later supported the Boxers is already mentioned. However, if the original line wasn't clear enough, I've reworded it to: "In response, the initially hesitant Empress Dowager Cixi, urged by the conservatives of the Imperial Court, supported the Boxers and declared war on foreign powers", which should please both Arilang and Дунгане.

The rest of the article may need more work, but the lead, although long, is fine for now. Or not? --res Laozi speak 08:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks user hkr, indeed, the lead has improved a lot, sort of acceptable, even though Yuan Weishi and 侯宜傑 might not fully agree with the wording. But then this is Wikipedia, where "consensus" is everything. Arilang talk 11:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I would add my word of thanks to HKK. I would judge that he has cobbled together an acceptable lead. However, I have one question. The lead says that the Boxers had "massive support from ordinary Chinese." I would agree that is a true statement for northern China -- but was it true south of Shandong? Should the article read "enjoyed massive support from ordinary Chinese in northern China?" It is my understanding that there was little support for the Boxers in the South and little or no violence aimed at foreigners in Shanghai and other cities. Smallchief 12:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, it was in the original lead and I didn't bother to change it. Researching it as we speak.--res Laozi speak 12:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

My suggestions:

  • (1) "remained for 55 days", not entirely correct, should be "they survived 55 days of violent attacks undertook by Boxers and Imperial Army soldiers."
  • (2) "until the Eight-Nation Alliance brought 20,000 armed troops to defeat the Boxers." the 20,000 armed troops were on a rescue mission to save life, since the Imperial Court was either unable, or unwilling to do so. Arilang talk 11:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The lines you've brought up are from the original lead. Either way, I can't make those changes, as it's against the Manual of Style, which details that "neutral" words are preferred. Phrases and words like "save lives", "survived" (in this context), "liberate", "freedom fighter", "cult" aren't allowed since they have an emotional connotation that acts as a point of view. Also, "to save life, since the Imperial Court was either unable, or unwilling to do so" is wrong. The Imperial Court declared war on foreign powers, it was under no obligation to defend the foreigners, since technically, they were at war.--res Laozi speak 12:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I really appreciate your work on this article which was in danger of becoming a total mess until you came along. I would suggest the followeing three changes to the above statement. "Diplomats, foreign civilians, soldiers, and Chinese Christians retreated to the Legation Quarter where they remained under siege for 55 days until the Eight National Alliance brought 20,000 armed troops to defeat the Chinese army and the Boxers."
    • My points are -- (1) omit "some." About 6,000 Chinese Christians took refuge in the Legation Quarter and the Beitang (North Cathedral). That seems to me more than "some." (2) for clarity adding the words "under siege" seems advisable. (3) add the "Chinese army." The primary opponent of the 20,000 foreign troops was the Chinese Army. The Boxers melted away as an organization and fighting force. Smallchief 12:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

false- The foreigners did not "survive 50 days of violent attacks"- they were almost destroyed by the Imperial army, only because the imperial army intself declared a truce did they survive

User:Arilang1234 claims- "they survived 55 days of violent attacks undertook by Boxers and Imperial Army soldiers."

Yet the Imperial army troops were on the verge of demolishing the foreigners, but the pro foreign manchu princes Ronglu and Prince Qing completely blocked artillery to the muslim army, not only that, Cixi announced a truce during the siege and sent food to the foreigners!

Prince Qing's Manchu troops were pro foriegn, and fought against Prince Zaiyi's troops who were besieging the legations Prince Qing's manchu banner troops HELPED the foreigners by attacing the boxers and kansu braves in front of the legations

Ronglu was pro foreign, he was in charge of the entire siege, and he made sure the siege was never pressed hom

According to a Chinese scholar, the Boxers were "anti imperialist", and it is documented that Cixi was forced to support the Boxers, and manchu princes ronglu and qing were pro foreign."The court of Tzu Hsi was sharply divided on the question of the Boxers. On the one side were her advisers, especially Jung Lu, who scorned the Boxers as rabble, ridiculed their claims to invulnerability, and called their supporters “absolutely crazy.” Jung Lu told the empress that “ one foreign soldier could kill one hundred Boxers without the least trouble.”7 On the other side was Prince Tuan, father of the heir apparent to the throne, fanatically anti-foreign and a palace politician as competent as the Dowager. Tzu Hsi swayed first one direction and then the other. Her predicament was well characterized by Sir Robert Hart. “The Court appears to be in a dilemma: if the Boxers are not suppressed, the Legations threaten to take action—if the attempt to suppress them is made, this intensely patriotic organization will be converted into an anti- dynastic movement.”8 The Dowager tried unsuccessfully to straddle the middle. As late as June 6, 1900, she declared that “Christians and Boxers both are children of the state, and the Court cares equally for both of them.”9 However, within a few days the pressure of the Boxers, virtually in control of the countryside, became irresistible. Chinese army units sided with the Boxers making suppression of the movement nearly impossible. The Boxer wave carried along the Dowager and her government. “The Ching already had become the docile and obedient slave of the foreign Powers,” said one Chinese scholar, “and then it suddenly fell captive to the Boxer anti-imperialist movement.”10 On June 9, the court came down on the side of the Boxers. The Tsungli Yamen was shaken up. Moderate and amiable Prince Ching was dismissed as president and replaced by Prince Tuan and three other Manchus.
I have added Qing Empire troops who fought against other Qing troops, as combatants along with the 8 nation alliances in the article, i feel this is justied from the sources i presented, that pro foreign Prince Qing ordered his troops to directly attack Prince Duan's anti foreign troops during the siege of the beijing legations.Дунгане (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your additions to the lead, not on the grounds that they are wrong, but because they've already been mentioned/implied and thus are redundant. That the Boxers were against Western Imperialism is mentioned in the first paragraph, and stated explicitly in the introductary sentence: "opposing Western imperialism and Christianity". And the notion that the liberal elements of the Imperial Court supported the foreigners, is already implied in the sentence: "the initially hesitant Empress Dowager Cixi, urged by the conservatives of the Imperial Court, supported the Boxers and declared war on foreign powers."--res Laozi speak 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
User hkr has done quite a good job in editing the lead section, which was a complete mess before he came on board, and I hope that it would not return to the earlier sad situation too soon. Arilang talk 02:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about simply "supporting the foreigners", pro foreign Imperial Army Manchu Bannermen under Prince Qing actually attacked the anti foreign forces of Prince Tuan and Dong Fuxiang, as mentioned and linked above by me, after the declaration of war and the start of the siege. They militarily helped the foreingers, and sent large amounts of supplies to them during the siege. Prince Ronglu stopped the muslim braves from destroying the legations.Дунгане (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The Manchu bannermen under Prince Qing and Ronglu were totally pro foreign, and helped the foreigners during the siege against Prince Duan's forces. Indicating that all the manchu princes were anti foreign would be a big lie. User:Arilang1234 is suggesting that the Manchus were entirely responsible for all the anti foreignism, his views don't hold up to reality. Cixi herself supplied food and supplies to the foreigners during the siege.
And Cixi and Prince Duan were not against adopting modern technology, Prince Duan commanded modernized Manchu army divisions, the divine tiger and spirit corps, and the muslim kansu braves had repeater mauser rifles and artillery. They did not fight with bows, arrows, and spears. The reason Tuan and Cixi destroyed the Hundred Day's reformers was because they thought, (correctly, as revealed by some modern scholars), that foreigners were behind the "reform", which was actually a coup plot by the westerners to seize control of china. Arilang1234 is pushing POV that the Manchus refused to adopt modern technology and crushed the reform movement because they were "barbaric". this is false. A reliable Taiwanese proffesor, 雷家聖, wrote a book called 力挽狂瀾: 戊戌政變新探, on how the so called "hundred days reform", was a plot by a western christian missionary to seize control of the Chinese government, but Cixi and prince Duan crushed his plot on time before he could accomplish it.
However, corrupt, pro foreign, Manchu princes like Prince Qing and Ronglu were against the Boxers, and supported the foreigners during the war. The fact that they were pro foreign totally throws all of Arilang1234's position out the window, since Arilang claimed the Manchus were anti foreign xenophobes who started the whole rebellion.
Unlike mainland China proffesors like Yuan Weishi, Professor Lei is from Taiwan and unbiased in his views.Дунгане (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems like you are suggesting Professor Lei is unbiased because he is from Taiwan and not China. This seems to reflect well on your accusation of racism on other people. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that Imperial Army units under Prince Qing, battled against anti foreign units in the imperial army must be included in the lead. It is very important when part of your own army is attacking another part of your army, in favor of the foreigners.Дунгане (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion that Imperial units fought on the side of the foreign armies and with each other is not substantiated by your references. Both of your references are journalism, not scholarship nor history. One of them says it was "reported once or twice that his [Prince Qing's] troops had clashed with those of Prince Duan." Your other reference says that "several encounters took place on the streets" of Beijing between different Chinese armies. That's not enough evidence to conclude that Imperial Chinese armies fought on the sides of the foreigners. Smallchief 12:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Taiwanese and people from mainland China are from the same ethnic group, its because of the political situation in China, and repression of thought that we get radically emotional views from the mainland, some Hui people in mainland even are now complaining on the "feudal" Ming dynasty repressing Hui culture, but on taiwan, we have never complained or heard such things as "feudal" Ming repressing Hui. In fact, a Hui writer from taiwan pointed out that Ming dynasty treated Hui people well. This new element of thinking of hui on the mainland was clearly the result of communist education of Imperial China being "feudal". I disagree alot with people from mainalnd now because of their communist education, now i hear "things" about Han people who have like 0.0000001% Uyghur ancestry being registered as "pure Uyghur", in Taoyuan County, Hunan by the communist party.Дунгане (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


User:Дунгане keep on forgetting this article is about Boxer Rebellion, it is not about Hundred Day Reform, nor Han people Repress Hui people. I think User:Дунгане needs some sort of coaching from more experienced editors, to help him on English spelling and grammar.

On the Imperial Court internal political fighting, since it is already mentioned in the main article, no need to add it to the lead section, which is already tediously too long for everyday readers.User:Arilang1234

This is really insulting, coming from a person who spelled "Savages" as "salvages"Дунгане (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Source: Prince Qing's Manchu Bannermen fought against Kansu braves, in favor of the foreigners

"Further attacks were opposed by the 10,000 men of the Manchu garrison controllbed by Prince Ching, who killed many Boxers and Kansu soldiers in endeavoring to drive them from their positions in front of the legations". Appletons' annual cyclopædia and register of important events of ..., Volume 5 This was not a news report or journalism.] The Banner troops attempted to clear away the boxers and kansu braves who still held the legations invested, and several encounters took place in the streets Дунгане (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Misleading statement contributed by User:Дунгане

Quote:"During the siege, pro foreign Imperial army units under Prince Qing fought against the anti foreign Imperial army units besieging the foreigners, in addition, the supreme commander of the Chinese forces, Ronglu, was pro foreign himself and acted in a way that prevented Chinese success. "
Anyone who is familiar with Qing Dynasty history, would know that the official name of China's last dynasty is 大清帝國, Great Qing Dynasty, and the Manchus would call it Daicing Gurun, and during nearly 300 years of Manchu rule, the Manchus did not consider themselves "Chinese", and the term "Chinese" was reserved for Han Chinese. In this statement written by User:Дунгане, the term "Chinese" was used twice, which may confuse some everyday readers. I sincerely hope that User:Дунгане does not need other editors to remind him(or her) again and again that writing encyclopedia is different from casual chatting on internet forum. Arilang talk 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

i sincerely hope that User:Arilang1234 realizes that without any sources, his comments and personal analysis, which is original research, is invalid. I sincerely hope that Arilang1234 does not think that posting original research and claiming his own theory about the etymology of the word chinese, that he does not think that it would deflect attention from his edits calling manchus "Barbarians", and inserting mass spam into the article
earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" edits All of user Arilang1234's earliest edits to the Boxer Rebellion, were reverted as incoherent, unsourced nonsense. I hope that he learns his lesson and does not attempt that again.Дунгане (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
and i also hope that Arilang1234 actually reads the sources in the article, which state Han chinese troops were in the imperial army.Дунгане (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my question, Дунгане

Quote:"During the siege, pro foreign Imperial army units under Prince Qing fought against the anti foreign Imperial army units besieging the foreigners, in addition, the supreme commander of the Chinese forces, Ronglu, was pro foreign himself and acted in a way that prevented Chinese success. "

In referring to the above statement made by Дунгане, what I said was:" In this statement written by User:Дунгане, the term "Chinese" was used twice, which may confuse some everyday readers. ". In case Дунгане did not, or could not understand the issue I raised, let me put it in high school English :The phrase "the supreme commander of the Chinese forces, Ronglu" should be "the supreme commander of the attacking Imperial Army, Ronglu", I know there were Han Chinese in the attacking soldiers, who came from the Imperial Army, not "Chinese forces". The second phrase "was pro foreign himself and acted in a way that prevented Chinese success. ", again, it is confusing, "Chinese success", as everyday readers may begin to ask, which "Chinese"? Han Chinese? Oversea Chinese? Chinese is too general a term to be used here. Arilang talk 06:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Its strange how you weren't able to see the section i created hours before you made this comment. I posted my response at 01:58, 17 November 2010, yet your comment now posted at 06:41, 17 November 2010 comes over four hours later. My response was in that section, yet you deliberately pretended not to see it, and posted another "Question" up here in this section.Дунгане (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Дунгане has certainly spend huge amount of time and effort in reading all my past editing records, I would take it as a compliment towards my contribution on Wikipedia, which began in Sep 2008, about 26 months ago, and during this times, many editors offered me a helping hand to improve my writing skill as well as my English. I wish to take the opportunity to say a big "Thank You" to all those who help me along the way.

I welcome any criticisium on my work, and since English is not my native language, I try very hard not to write Chinglish here, after all, this is English wikipedia we are working on. I am not very sure what is User:Дунгане native language, since User:Дунгане is saying nothing on his(or her) user homepage, but looking at his pigin English, all I can say is, User:Дунгане does need a lot of help from other more experienced editors. Arilang talk 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Its very clear that the reason your edits were deleted were not only because of their poor grammar and spelling, but because of your blatant racist content added into the article and Anti Boxer POV, without any sources. trying to blame racism and insults inserted into the article on mispelling isn't going to help you. If you added that Manchus were "Barbarian", and boxers were "savages", on chinese wikipedia, your edits would get reverted as fast as I can blink my eye. The only thing i have done wrong in terms of my english is mispelling, because i type too fast, i do not have grammatical errors. on the other hand, you constantly butcher your english grammar so bad, you are doing it right now- "I wish to take the opportunity to say a big "Thank You" to all those who help me along the way." should be, "I wish to take the opportunity to say a big "Thank You" to all of those who helped me along the way.".
It appears that you have resorted to personal insults, since i defeated all your false arguments on this talk page. I disproved your assertion about all Manchus being xenophobix, i disproved your claim that the chinese army was primtive and had no modern weapons, i disproved your claim that the foreigners easily beat the chinese army, i disproved your claim that "Chinese" is not a correct term to label the imperial army.
Therefore, you have reverted to sophomoric insults regarding my spelling, while ignoring your own horrific grammar AND mispelling, and you continue to remain unapologetic about inserting racism into the articles.Дунгане (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Were Manchus "Barbarians"?

Дунгане said: "If you added that Manchus were "Barbarian", and boxers were "savages", on chinese wikipedia, your edits would get reverted as fast as I can blink my eye." Bad luck that you are on English Wikipedia, not Chinese Wikipedia, which seems to be more suitable for you, where Self-censorship allegations are for real. There are a lot of 50 Cent Party members in Chinese Wikipedia, if you happen to know some, you may encourage some of them to come over to try editing in the real English Wikipedia for a change.

On the question whether Manchus were "Barbarians" or not, my suggestion for Дунгане is, please read more books, for example:

  • The rise and splendour of the Chinese Empire by René Grousset.

http://books.google.com/books?id=oncUz_U-joIC&pg=PA279&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=7G_jTLXoC42muQPOyujGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

And who else did call Manchus "Barabrians", well none other than John King Fairbank himself in:

  • "China's response to the West: a documentary survey, 1839-1923"

http://books.google.com/books?id=0maVJuCh78oC&pg=PA268&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=7G_jTLXoC42muQPOyujGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Manchu%20Emperors%20as%20barbarian&f=false

  • New Qing imperial history: the making of inner Asian empire at Qing Chengde 作者：James A. Millward

http://books.google.com/books?id=ughIfOtjGUkC&pg=PA36&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=7G_jTLXoC42muQPOyujGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Manchu%20Emperors%20as%20barbarian&f=false

  • Asia in western and world history: a guide for teaching By：Ainslie Thomas Embree,Carol Gluck

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xn-6yMhAungC&pg=PA528&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=U5HjTLS_OpG2vQOYsqTQDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Manchu%20Emperors%20as%20barbarian&f=false

  • Korea and East Asia: the story of a Phoenix By：Kenneth B. Lee

http://books.google.com/books?id=XrZQs-6KswMC&pg=PA112&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=U5HjTLS_OpG2vQOYsqTQDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

OK, I shall ask Дунганеa question: "Were Manchus Barbarians?" Arilang talk 07:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources describe Imperial Army as Chinese

page 19 of this linkДунгане (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't even need to explain why Arilang1234 is hiding his "question" up there. My answer was down here already, no doubt he saw it, and refused to acknowledged it, or the second possibility is that he is putting the question before he made the comment insulting by english speaking ability, because i pointed out that i disproved all his original research on the talk page, and he wants to make it seem as though he had actually asked a question before.Дунгане (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Sources here and in the article described the Qing dynasty side as the "chinese" side, vis a vis the Western Allied 8 nation alliance.Дунгане (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
in Addition, let me point out that chinese is an ENGLISH word, which was used by Englishmen around the Boxer rebellion to describe both Han and Manchu. Arilang1234 conviniently switched his position twice, originally saying that Chinese only meant han, and should be specific, then saying "Chinese is too general a term to be used here"07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Дунгане should read more books, in order to improve his English

Дунгане, can you tell me what is the dictionary definition of "sinification"?

China's response to the West: a documentary survey, 1839-1923 By：Ssu-yü Teng,John King Fairbank

Response to User:Arilang1234's slurs against Manchus

Germans called jews "untermensch" (meaning subhuman", so according to Arilang1234 we have to add this racial slur to every article on jews, since Arilang1234 thinks that the opinions of ancient writers should be inserted into the article, he also probably thinks that Nazi theories on race should also be inserted into articles on other races. I am being highly sarcastic here, i don't even think this comment of mine is nesesary since sane editors know that calling ethnic groups by slurs and insults is against wikipedia policy.Дунгане (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sun Yetsen called Manchus "Barbarians"

China's Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839-1923 By John King Fairbank. http://books.google.com/books?id=0maVJuCh78oC&pg=PA268&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=7G_jTLXoC42muQPOyujGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Manchu%20Emperors%20as%20barbarian&f=false


According to JK Fairbank, Sun Yetsen and his revolutionaries did call Manchus "Barbarians", Дунгане, are you happy now? Arilang talk 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Sun Yatsen, was also a pro soviet revolutionary, whatever he said on manchus is his opinion, and should not be inserted as fact on wikipedia articles, or even used in comments on talk pages, because it violates manners, etiquette, and displays POV against the Manchu ethnic group, so using "barbarian" to describe a people violates wikipedia policy. Not only have you used that adjective, you used it in a demeaning manner, accusing all manchus of being violent and genocidal.Дунгане (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Christians were originally Bandits who converted to Christianity to avoid punishment- And Western Powers wanted to seize Chinese territory from the start, whether the boxers were suppressed or not

Quote from a Columbia University Source- [http://www.cmunny.org/cmunny06/Boxer.Rebellion.BG.pdf "Yu Xian was the local Manchu official in Shantung province under Li Pingheng when widespread attacks on Christians by a group known as the Big Swords began taking place in 1896. Discovering that the Big Swords were not anti-Manchu and impressed by their success in suppressing bandits, which helped the already over-extended provincial army, Yu Xian began secretly recruiting the Big Swords into a special unit of the provincial army. After the Big Swords killed a leader of one of the leading bandit groups, his followers converted to Catholicism and the Catholics began a campaign alleging the Big Swords of damage to their churches. This eventually led to the burning of churches and the sacking of Christian villages by Big Swords in Shantung. Yu Xian settled the matter by beheading the two most prominent Big Sword leaders, but letting everyone else off the hook."]

"bandits, after suffering defeat at the hands of the Big Swords, claimed membership in the Catholic church"

The Big Sword Society was used by the Manchu governor Yuxian to destroy and suppress bandits. Because foreigners gave legal protection to chinese christians, bandits converted to christianity to avoid punishment from government authorities. This is why Yuxian set the Big Swords loose on christians in shandong, since they were bandits and criminals.

Big Swords began collaring bandits and bringing them to local magistrates for prosecution. When the magistrates were swamped with cases, the Bug Swords applied summary justice, killing bandits on the spot

Innocent Chinese villagers were provoked by the German missionary George Stenz, who outraged villagers, leading Chinese boxers to kill german priests.

"the foreign cry was "Yellow Peril," and yellow journalism was widely circulated, cursing the Chinese for defending their own country, which Russia, Germany, and Prance were eager to seize"

Jiang Kai, an ANTI Boxer magistrate, noted that Christian converts lied and filed false lawsuits

German troops attempted to rape chinese women, and killed chinese civilians in Shandong, before the Boxers rebellion started

even before the Boxer rebellion started in 1896, the Germans were looking for an excuse to provoke an incident to seize chinese land. The German Kaiser Wilhelm was delighted that the german priests were killed, calling it a "Splended opportunity" to seize land from chinaДунгане (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is pushing a single viewpoint and needs to be revised.

I'm reading a significant pro Chinese, anti "foreign" slant in this article. It is to the point that this article has become useless as a reference. There is a lot of effort expended in this article to prove how many foreigners where killed and how great various Chines forces where. There is also an assertion that the foreign forces only survived because of intervention by a Chinese general (whether this is true or not I won't comment - the point being this article has a very significant neutrality problem). Also there is a number of classic English grammar errors usually made by mainland Chinese which has me suspecting - has this article been hijacked and corrupted by 五毛党(wu mao dang)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.63.176 (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


I agree with 208.64.63.176, someone has been writing Chinese High School Text book[2] here on Wikipedia with bad English. Arilang talk 14:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass Vandalism by ip 208.64.63.176

irrelevant rant thread here filed by 208.64.63.176, considering the fact that every single referenced used in the article is by a western author from western university. I would like him to point out where any chinese sources where used.

You mention "western" like it means something. A reference is a reference. As long as it is verifiable that is all that matters. The main point is that you accurately quote or paraphrase the reference and do not twist it to give your own personal meaning. Binesi (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that our Friend Binesi, who appears to be the same person as ip 208.54.63.176 does not understand that he just accused me of being a communist agent. i was pointing out that i didnt use communist sources.Дунгане (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

208.64.63.176 edited the article, claiming to correct the user, "chin1976"'s bad english, in this edit- "Corrected chin1976's bad English and corrected prose to focus on facts given in cited references" yet anyone can see that User:chin1976 doesn't exist. Also I see no evidence of inocorrect english being used in the edits 208.64.63.176 reverted, would he mind pointing them out?Дунгане (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

in this edit, 208.64.63.176 removes cited information stating that all the forces except the Japanese commited rape and pillage, which was supported by the reference here, which pointed out specifically that all the forces except japan engaged in rape and pillage.

In this edit, 208.64.63.176 removed "but there is no evidence of rape", yet the refence used in the aritcle, says that for all the boxer atrocities there had been no incidents of chinese rape

Our friend 208.64.63.176 also struck again, he changed a section signifigantly, changing a previous paragraph, which was referenced, to The Imperial Army Muslim Kansu braves additionally slaughtered Christians near the legations while looting indiscriminately. The reference used, "The Atlantic monthly, Volume 113", pointed out that the kansu braves had tea with their hosts and apologized for intruding, and only took away several thousand dollars of valuables without killing any of their hosts, as long as they were not christian The reference clearly points at the the Kansu Braves spared non christians, and did not engage in "looting indiscriminately"

208.64.63.176 changed "General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Eight-Nation Alliance. They were put into the rear division, and attacked the legations relentlessly" to ". General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Allies. However they where put into the rear division and mostly engaged in pillage and looting." 208.64.63.176 claimed that "Corrected to match information given in citation. Corrected capitalization" yet none of the refences supplied, [3] [4] [5] say that the Kansu braves engaged in pillaging and looting, only that they had attacked the legations.Дунгане (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just in case this wasn't clear

Restoring the blatant vandalism i mentioned above, as Gaius Octavius Princeps did, will not be tolerated. an admin warned 208.64.63.176 that his edits constituted vandalism.Дунгане (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

also i would mind if Gaius explains who this ficticious User:Arhyahe is.Дунгане (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? Ravensfire (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Writing that the Kansu Braves had tea with their victims is really twisting the reference to paint a rosy picture Дунгане. The reference clearly states that they where looting generally and that the victim in question was spared only after he cooperated fully and even offered to make them tea. For his efforts his family was spared the sword but his home was still looted and they had the gall to drink his tea too afterward. This is general looting, not looting of Christians only as he was not a Christian as evidenced by his altar. There is nothing in this article that says they only targeted Christians even though that may have been their primary purpose. Please remember the purpose of Wikipedia. It's not for you to revise history, and the article is so slanted right now and overly focussed on a bit player Kansu Braves faction that it would make most people suspicious. Binesi (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It is clear that the Beijing population in general supported and respected the Kansu braves- "In spite of these deeds of violence, even intelligent people still believed that the Kansu soldiery were a tower of defence for China, and would be more than able to repel any number of foreign troops"Дунгане (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
the foreign protests against dong's troops had of course convinced many chinese that these were precisely the men needed to protect the capitalДунгане (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This article contains many errors

Much of this article is misleading and worthless for research. A very long list of errors could be compiled, but I will list only four to illustrate my point: the misleading or mistaken captions on four of the paintings used to illustrate the section of the article called “Imperial Army Muslim Kansu Braves.”

The errors in the captioning of these four illustrations are compounded by their use in several different articles about events during the Boxer Rebellion, thus corrupting virtually everything written on Wikipedia about the Boxer Rebellion.

1. The caption for the first illustration says “Dong Fuxiang’s troops laid mines which blew up a Russian paddle Steamer at Shanhaiguan, inflicting many casualties upon the Russians.” The source given for this caption is apparently Jane Elliott, page 204, but she says only that the Chinese used “torpedos against the Russian steamers at Shanhaiguan.” Thus, the actual sinking of a Russian steamer at Shanhaiguan is not confirmed by the reference. If the sinking of a Russian steamer causing Russian casualties cannot be confirmed by a reliable reference then this illustration should be removed.

2. The caption for the second illustration says: "Dong Fuxiang’s troops attack on the Dagu (Taku) forts. News of the temporarily successful attack led the Dowager Empress to declare war and decree Imperial backing for the Boxers….” It was not the Chinese who attack Dagu; it was the foreign navies. And the entire battle to take Dagu was over in 6 hours. Thus, there was no “temporarily successful attack” on Dagu by Chinese forces. Likewise, there is no evidence that Dong Fuxiang and his soldiers were involved in the Battle of the Dagu Forts. Thus, the caption of the illustration might read correctly: “The Allied navies attacked and captured the Dagu Forts on June 17, 1900. A misleading report of victory in the battle submitted by Chinese officials influenced the Dowager Empress’s decision to declare war and decree Imperial backing for the Boxers.”

3. The caption for the third illustration says: “Dong Fuxiang’s Muslim forces defeated the Allied army at the Battle of Beicang on August 1.” But the Battle of Beicang took place on August 5, 1900 and it was an allied victory. Thus, a correct caption for this illustration might say, “Allied forces defeated the Chinese army at the Battle of Beicang on August 5, 1900.”

4. The caption for the fourth illustration says: “Dong Fuxiang’s Muslim troops gained victory over the Western forces at Tianjin.” That’s misleading. After a month of siege and skirmishing, the Western and Japanese forces defeated the Chinese army and captured Tianjin. Thus, the corrected caption might say, “The allied armies defeated the Chinese and captured the walled city of Tianjin on July 14, 1900 after a difficult and bloody battle.”

I would also suspect, although I’m not an expert on Chinese commanders, that the role of Dong Fuxiang in all these battles is exaggerated. He commanded only a small percentage of the Chinese troops who were involved in resisting the foreign armies. Plus it's hard to imagine how he and his troops could been in all these places, plus besieging the Legations in Beijing, in such a short time period. Beijing is 100 miles distant from Dagu and Shanhaiguan -- and the railroad was cut.

These mistakes – and many others in this article, and in other articles about the Boxer Rebellion – should be corrected. I would do so, except that deletions of inaccurate text are undone and the inaccurate text re-posted. Smallchief 14:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with user Smallchief's comment:"the role of Dong Fuxiang in all these battles is exaggerated. ", and it looks like there are "half baked" editors who would do anything to try to tell readers how important the “Imperial Army Muslim Kansu Braves.” were. Arilang talk 20:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

IF you have a problem with errors take it up with the source used

nothing in the source indicated that the information was false or true, etc., the Nianhua pictures on fathom did not have much text on them, so most of the written content was by Frances Wood of the British library, and when he wrote " Encouraging news of this temporarily successful attack", he gave no indication to the date, or to whether it was false. identifying this with another battle in another source, and saying that its false would be original research. The correct course of action according to wikipedia policy would be to determinte if this is a WP:RS (reliable source), if its not, then delete the information, and replace it with "This nianhua by an anynonymous author who did not view the actual battle depicts the alleged events in XXXX battle", or delete them altogether. As i noted already, using the other sources describing the battle of tianjin, which talk about the 8 nation alliance victory, and using them to say that the Dowager empress received a false report, would be original reasearch,(WP:OR), due to the fact that the source didn't mention anything about a report, regardless of whether that happened or not.21:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up by more dispassionate editors. I will try to help.

I agree that the Nianhua pictures should be removed as they don't reflect the consensus of actual events and they tend to confuse and slant this article to read more like a propaganda piece for a small faction within the overall Boxer movement. The Chinese version is actually far more neutral and useful for research at this point! As this currently stands it comes off as a general attack on Chinese Christians and foreigners and a glorification of Chinese Muslims under Dong Fuxiang. However both religions in China are equally of foreign origin and neither is more or less valid in Chinese culture and history. Also both sides of this conflict had issues which they felt where legitimate. This subject needs to be treated with neutrality by those with a less personal attachment.

I can understand your intention here Дунгане, and I sympathize. It is apparent that you have a strong personal connection to this topic. If you want to paint the Kansu Braves in a positive light and illustrate their contributions to this conflict it should be done in a more subtle and neutral manner that doesn't leave this article permanently flagged as biased. Otherwise your efforts are in vain as it is unlikely that anyone will use this article for research or let it influence their opinion when it is flagged as such. You have contributed a number of useful references and it is time to let editors with a more dispassionate outlook clean this article up. Please refrain from getting into a edit war with them. Binesi (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the Beijing population in general supported and respected the Kansu braves- "In spite of these deeds of violence, even intelligent people still believed that the Kansu soldiery were a tower of defence for China, and would be more than able to repel any number of foreign troops"
the foreign protests against dong's troops had of course convinced many chinese that these were precisely the men needed to protect the capital
"Even if he and his muslims soldiers were greatly feared, certainly by the inhabitants of Beijing, his name resonated with heorism after the death of General Nie Shicheng and the withdrawal of generals ma yukun and song qing"Дунгане (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
And you have a point here somewhere? Finding references to support almost any viewpoint is no great feat. My comments stand.
Look - you are a good researcher and have contributed a number of useful references to this article. However it's time to bring this article into the mainstream and out of this increasingly singular and tunneled out point of view. Trust me, if your viewpoint has any validity to this article the plain facts will speak for themselves. This excessive coloring is bordering on (or well past) obnoxious. I have been using Wikipedia for years and years and this is the first article that I have read that has actually got me motivated enough to create an account and actively help protect Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Binesi (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact is, that the Boxer war was about foreign missionaries and alleged chinese "Christians" (actually bandits who converted to christianity) were aggresively asserting power and territorial concessions to seize from China, the response was that the secret society known as the Boxers began attacking foreigners, and the foreigners used it as an excuse to march their army to invade china, yet the Chinese Imperial forces displayed absolutely no intention of destroying either the legations or committing any sort of massacre, the article was severely slanted toward a pro foreign POV and how the Boxers and Chinese forces were pure evil before i started making corrections.
Yet you do not seem to want to contribute positively, instead, your ip address accused me of making "english errors" as if i was from mainland china and then concluding that i was a "Wu mao dang" (50 cent party), which is a form of communist agent. We do not take such attacks lightly on wikipedia. None of my positions closely resemble anything like what the CCP says on the Boxer war, the CCP accuses Dowager Empress Cixi and the court of being corrupt and reactionary, yet i am correcting POV against them and portraying them in a neutral manner.Дунгане (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what I wrote is still in this thread. There is no reason you need to change it to become a personal attack on you instead of being the general reflection on this article it is. Did you actually read it or just interpret it? Also - is this _your_ article? You are not a "we". You are no more Wikipedia than anyone else. And thanks, I know quite well what the CCP says as I live in China and have read these textbooks. I also can recognize Chinese ESL grammar pretty well. Now that aside, I am not against you and have no interest in "attacks" on anyone. I want to help you and other editors get this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it (English grammar unfortunately included). As you saw fit to abuse the administrative process to claim my edits where "vandalism" I have registered an account and made myself fully accountable. I will ask you to forgive me as I get up to speed on all of Wikipedia's editing requirements. It really is a shame that it becomes necessary for other editors to try to fix this article. Binesi (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
We is the community of all wikipedia editors, upon whose agreement on content is on what wikipedia is based- see Wikipedia:Consensus. My native language is not chinese, nor is it any other language besides english. And even if i made alleged "errors characteristic of chinese speaking people", singapore and taiwan are two places which contain native chinese speaking populations, neither of which are under CCP control. You accuse me of "abusing" the administrative process, yet your edits were not mere mistakes, you lied in several of your edits, claiming you "Corrected chin1976's bad English", chin 1976 doesn't exist, and in these two edits [6] [7] you removed information you didn't like, with no justification at all. this is a pretty bad start if you want me to assume good faith. You also added slander in the article in this edit-[8] saying that the Kansu braves were engaged in "pillage and looting", yet none of the references used supported that. Its pretty obvious that its not " Wikipedia's editing requirements.", which you were confused with. These edits were plain vandalism and POV twisting, and you still don't acknowledge that.Дунгане (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to feel you speak for everyone. This is odd, but ok - lets move on. If your native language was English you would probably use correct capitalization - but that's ok too - its my personal observation and of no importance to this article. Also, I don't know why you keep talking about the CCP. You seem to have a negative opinion about it? - but again, ok, whatever - we can continue to move on. About my "lie" as you claim, I explained each edit as clearly as I thought was necessary. I don't see you specifically responding to most of the edits you undid. Why? You have nothing to say? Also, yes, I did actually say the Kansu Braves engaged in pillage and looting which was what was stated in the reference. In The Atlantic monthly, Volume 113 it reads "Even this exemplary punishment did not abate their fury, for (the) next day another large contingent started looting again, and in due course approached my house.". He goes on to explain he gave evidence he was not a Christian but he was looted regardless. This is actually indiscriminate looting. The looters did not discriminate Christians from non Christians. You dare accuse me of a lie when there is direct and easily accessed evidence against your claim? Oh, and about chin1976 - it was my first try at editing and I didn't know how to read who made the original post. I'm getting a bit better at this editing stuff hopefully? If not, abuse the heck out of me if you like and I will do my best to improve. ;-) Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
somehow "Дунгане", magically warps into "chin1976". I'd like to know what kind of computer you were using that changes Cyrillic into the latin alphabet. The "Atlantic monthly" reference was nowhere in your edit, not only that, the Atlantic monthly refers to the pre siege situation in Beijing, when the Boxers and Kansu braves were running around, not the situation during the siege, which was when they began to besiege the legations. The references which were present- [9] [10] [11] say nothing about looting, and they refer to the situation during the siege.Дунгане (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
there are two things you do that are not tolerated according to wiki policy, removing cited information for no reason, and misrepresenting existing sources, if another source mentions something, you add it along with the original information and source, you don't delete the original information. And about the looting, you just wrote a blanket statement that they looted, and didn't note that they only killed christians because they considered them to be potential spies.Дунгане (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
So you wrote... somehow "Дунгане", magically warps into "chin1976" - what? You couldn't understand what I said? Please stop talking about this chin1976, it's getting tired and pointless and has nothing to do with facts in this article. OK, so now I see you are just putting up a smoke screen. First you accuse me of slander and now you don't? You want to complain that I didn't cite the reference which were already cited in the page elsewhere? OK, that's valid. Now explain to me how that is slander. Also you can explain your accusation that I "directly" copied material instead of saying I poorly paraphrased it - big difference. You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see that you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Binesi arrogantly claims he has brushed off and "shoot" down my accusations, yet he totally ignored the fact when i pointed out in these two edits [12] [13] you removed' information you didn't like, with no justification at all. It seems that you have a pro western POV and is hellbent on removing information unfavorable to them. i would also like to remind him that he got SLAMMED by an admin for his vandalismДунгане (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No further comments here. You have made my points quite transparently. Since you are bent on undoing all changes, I suggest you edit the problems in this article yourself and we can revisit in a few days. Binesi (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This user Binesi does not appear to understand copyright rules on wiki. In this edit he copied directly from the book "Dragon lady: the life and legend of the last empress of China"

Дунгане please do not slander me or use this as a pretense to undo changes you do not agree with. I did not make a direct copy of this book but I actually did do a poor job of paraphrasing which I am quite willing to improve. Binesi (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It is clear that User:Binesi does not understand what close paraphrasing is, even when they don't look exactly alike, its still copyvio, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasingДунгане (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

First, we cannot copy any content that has been previously published outside of Wikipedia unless we can prove that this content is public domain or we can verify that has been licensed compatibly for our use. (See copyright policy and our site's Terms of Use. It doesn't matter if the content does not bear a copyright notice; under the U.S. law that governs Wikipedia, content is automatically protected by copyright. You are allowed to use brief excerpts of non-free content, but only if you clearly mark these by quotation marks or block quotations and only if you use them for good reason. Some reasons can be found at the non-free content guidelines.

Otherwise, all content that you place on Wikipedia must be written completely in your own words. You cannot follow too closely on other sources for fear of creative a derivative work. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism"..Дунгане (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Дунгане, please remember WP:AGF. Be helpful, not petty.

The information above could be contained in a link and not copy and pasted into the talk page. This only strikes me as pretentious.

After reading the source article again I would agree I ended up using too many of the same words when clarifying this paragraph. It would have been far more helpful if you would improve this sentence instead undoing in mass the numerous improvements I have made to this article. In any case I will revise it and repost. Binesi (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And Binesi is confusing locations

It appears Binesi confused Pingyuan County, Shandong, with Pingyuan County, Guangdong in this edit. If you look at the source, it says Shandong several times before it mentions the falsified lawsuits.Дунгане (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will correct this and reinstate the improved paragraph. The amount of time you spent writing this was a great deal longer than it would have taken for you to correct the single word. Binesi (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese forces never wanted to attack the legations, it was the foreigners who started the firing

The Dowager Empress actually did not even order the Chinese Imperial troops to conduct a siege, on the contrary, she ordered them to protect the foreigners in the legations, it was Prince Duan who led the Boxers in, for them to loot his enemies within the Imperial court and the foreigners, and in fact, when the Boxers originally were let into the city and went on a looting rampage, against both the foreign and the Chinese Imperial forces, the Imperial authority kicked them out, the old Boxers were sent outside Beijing to halt the invading foreign armies, while young Boxers were absorbed into the Muslim Kansu army. Grant Hayter-Menzies, Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling. Hong Kong University Press. p. 88. ISBN 9622098819. Retrieved 2010-10-31.

The Chinese army only fired several firecrackers multiple times at the legations to make it seem as though they were pressing a siege, while they were not. The commander of all the Forces, Ronglu, tried to negotiate for a ceasefire, but it was the foreigners who opened fire on Dong Fuxiang's army. The foreigners in the legations opened fire on Chinese forces without provocation, killing numerous people, the Muslim army was forced to defend itself by returning fire. When the Chinese forces built notices and and sent messengers notifying the foreigners that the Imperial chinese forces were going to protect them, and open up communications, and to cease fire, the foreigners in the legations responded by shooting and killing the messengers and refused to make peace. It was the British minister who dragged Chinese Christians with him into the Su Wang Fu palace after removing Su Wang Fu from the palace. Grant Hayter-Menzies, Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling. Hong Kong University Press. p. 89. ISBN 9622098819. Retrieved 2010-10-31.

The only soldiers who wanted to press a siege, were Dong Fuxiang's muslim warriors, who were allied to the anti foreign Prince Duan, who had originally allowed the Boxers to come into the city. Ronglu directed his own forces to instead protect the foreigners in the legations, per the Dowager Empress's decree, and only fired face shots and firecrackers to make it seem as though they were fighting. Grant Hayter-Menzies, Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling. Hong Kong University Press. p. 90. ISBN 9622098819. Retrieved 2010-10-31.Дунгане (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with "Dong Fuxiang's muslim warriors"??? ...Seriously - there is so much more to this event than your hobby horse interest. Maybe you should write a separate article? Binesi (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Muslim "fighters", would constitute copying directly from the source. I use synonyms as much as possible to avoid copyvio.Дунгане (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I think Binesi's point is that the article has been focusing too much on Muslim troops, when they played a minor part in the conflict compared to the Han Chinese, Manchus, and Westerners. It's like if the World War II article was focused on Italy and not Germany or Japan.--resident (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Go look at Seymour Expedition, which is sourced. the sources mention that han chinese forces were totally confused and did not oppose the foreign entry, while the muslim forces played the key role in ripping apart Seymour's Allied foreign army.
In addition, numerous sources in the article also state that the muslim forces were the one who most aggresively pushed the siege of the legations, not manchu, han, or any other army.Дунгане (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the Muslim forces played no role, only that their role in the conflict has been over emphasised. Using the previous example, Italy did play an important role in World War II. But Germany and Japan had equal, if not more important, roles in the conflict, and the article should reflect that. --resident (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Binesi says- "I know quite well what the CCP says as I live in China and have read these textbooks", being honest about your location is not a requirement of wiki policy, yet using this to claim an edge over other editors is not allowed by wiki policy either. You claimed that living in China somehow gives you the right to claim that this article was written by communist agents (Wu Mao Dang)Дунгане (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please give it a rest with the personal attacks Дунгане. Although it is none of your business, yes I am in China and sometimes I need to use a proxy to view content that is otherwise blocked. It's a pretty common practice here as Wikipedia has often been blocked. Every post I have made recently is from my real IP address which is in Shanghai should you really care. Do please come visit if you are in town and I would wager you would be much more civil.
Oh, and I definitely could not and have not made any claims about my having any special rights but thank you for thinking that I might. I hope you don't assume that I am Chinese because I live here or have read children's textbooks. In fact, I am quite mixed if you really care to know (and I don't think anyone else does so why don't you just read this and then delete this whole section you created as it's irrelevant to the topic).
I await your next attack... (no, not really - I'll check again in a few days) Binesi (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Дунгане, this section is clearly inappropriate, and you're on the verge of going too far. Let's focus on the content.--resident (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh gosh. Дунгане's at it still? Just give it a rest and report him to an admin. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see now what this is. I should have researched his history before trying to engage directly or respond reasonably. You are right - thanks. Time to try a different tack. I'll compile all this for an admin to deal with and stop participating in the noise. Binesi (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh gosh, bob, go figure, i already reported Binesi and his ip to admins already.- [14] [15]
Binesi violated copyvio, and added vandalism to the article. Your defence of him will only be to your detriment.Дунгане (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment- [16] These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- [17] [18] These were the references- [19] [20] Дунгане (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Solution

The reason the grammar in the article is butchered, is because i was forced to take liberties to avoid copyvio. I don't have a problem with grammar fixes and translation corrections. I do have a problem with Binesi deleting information and not even reading the references before changing information as i noted above, and an admin specifically warned Binesi's ip for misrepresenting sources

I will stay off the article if Binesi stays off, and someone else like Hongkongresident will proxy edits.

Binesi has also cried wolf, usinig the classic excuse that the article was written by pro Communist users and that my english allegedly matches that of a native chinese speaker. as i mentioned above, what i added to the article doesn't even remotely match what the Communist party of china says on the subject, the communists accuse the Qing dynasty of failing to modernize and attack Empress Dowager Cixi, while i noted that the Qing forces used modern weapons and Empress Cixi tried to negotiate for ceasefires and even ordered the protection of the foreigners.

from now on, since Users like Arilang1234 and Binesi have both cried wolf in regards to alleged communist users inserting information, I recommend that the next person who uses an ad hominem attack about "wu mao dang" or "communists" without any evidence, gets banned.

let me quote Bobthefish2 here in regards to my chinese speaking skills- "Do you even know Chinese?" "I agree. He doesn't know what he's talking about" Chinese is clearly not my native language. I have been accused of speaking "chinglish" and "pidgin english" by arilang1234, and benisi has claimed grammar errors as one of the reasons he is "fixing" the article, yet no one has pointed out any errors that i made which suggest i am not a native english speaker. I regard these accusations as personal attacks since you are not offering proof.Дунгане (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your pattern of copying the language of others. Congratulations for repeating the term "ad hominem". If you continue to copy and learn maybe you could even understand my posts and stop being so defensive. I hope you have come to understand the real meaning of slander too while you are at it. You no longer accuse me of it, but you continue to commit it.
I cannot fathom why you do not read that link you posted of mine? Here it is: "has this article been hijacked and corrupted by 五毛党". It's a question. Can you see that? Actually I don't think you are a "communist agent" I do have some other theories, but I will not emulate your method of personal attacks. I also do not necessarily agree with your disparagement of the CCP. Further, 五毛党 has a wider meaning than you appear to understand. These days it's used to label anyone who has an extreme viewpoint favoring China or Chinese people. Seeing this article contain numerous attacks on "foreigners" and Christians and the repeated glorification of the Chinese forces is more than a little suspicious. For example, I see repeated attempts to explain that only "foreigners" raped anyone. If you wrote it - what's your personal issue? Why so much effort there? Is there some hatred you need to express? Did something happen in your family history? Just get it out in the open so I can understand. Also why so many weasel words and unsupported attributions and other types of bias? On this very page you often refer to yourself as "we" and "our" to give a false foundation to your statements (use inline search). This article is a complete mess and this talk page is just so much off topic noise.
I agree totally with you not touching this article. Superb idea and I am glad you are taking my suggestion. I actually don't want to write this article (you have pointed how bad I am at it and I tend to agree for now). I would be happy not to need to touch it. Personally, it would be great to see Smallchief proceed with all the edits that he was worried would get edit warred and even hope some other hands contribute to get this far away from being a collection of reference fragments supporting a single viewpoint. I actually don't care much about this topic and I just want to see Wikipedia reflect reality and not try to influence it. Anyone with sufficient idle time on their hands can gather up enough quotes to support any idea they like and that does not make an encyclopedia article. Binesi (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh btw.. since I'm not touching this article - could someone please fix those awful translations of 扶清灭洋? The best translation is probably "Support the Qing Dynasty and exterminate the Westerners". The exterminate word could be contentious. You could also use "destroy" but there is a meaning of destroying totally and also removing/ejecting so I think exterminate would be best.
Also, for the record, since I started some interesting reading about Wikipedia's more obscure policies - my usage of the word "slander" does not represent a legal threat. You can write as much unsubstantiated crap about other editors as you like Дунгане and I am happy to let Wikipedia's administrators deal with it. Binesi (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, i would like Binesi to show the edit in which i criticized Binesi's use of the word slander, and where i said it was a legal threat. Oh yeah you can't- because it doesn't exist.Дунгане (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nianhua

I am creating a separat Nianhua article on the history of the art itself, any material here gleaned from the website on nianhua, like the following paragraph can be deleted, and i will not challenge it-

"Dong Fuxiang's Muslim forces defeated the Westerners led by Seymour on August 1 outside of Tianjin at the Battle of Beicang. They bombarded the city and mined a Russian paddle steamer at the Battle of Shanhaiguan (1900), inflicting many casualties. At Shanhaiguan the Chinese Muslims also torpedoed Russian ships with torpedoes"

However, the nianhua pictures themselves have already been cleaned of POV by me, a few days ago i added "Nianhua by an anonymous artist who was not at the battle, depicts the alleged event of" to every single caption of nianhua which depicted battle scenes, so it is not nesecary to change or delete them.Дунгане (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gaselee Expedition

I would question the titling of this section the "Gaselee Expedition." British General Gaselee was not in charge of the allied, e.g. Eight-Nation Alliance, army marching on Beijing. Nor were the British troops as numerous in the expedition as the Russians and Japanese. The leadership of the allied army was collective. One of the many errors in this article is the statement in this section that Gaselee was the leader of the allied army. I'll correct the article if others agree -- but given the controversy on this article I hesitate to put any work into it.

You can remove the following paragraph, which was based on nianhua i will not challenge it- "Dong Fuxiang's Muslim forces defeated the Westerners led by Seymour on August 1 outside of Tianjin at the Battle of Beicang. They bombarded the city and mined a Russian paddle steamer at the Battle of Shanhaiguan (1900), inflicting many casualties. At Shanhaiguan the Chinese Muslims also torpedoed Russian ships with torpedoes"
Also if you retitle the section from Gasalee to something else, i will not challenge it either.
grammar changes are welcome, but any other serious changes, such as deleting information, please discuss here before doing so, since mostly everything else i used as a source besides the nianhua website were from reliable books published by degree holding authors or publications issued from historical organizations.Дунгане (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'

Article needs to be re-written AND Дунгане should be banned

This Article is extremely non-neutral POV and badly written and worded. Plus, I want to be civil, but this idiot - Дунгане is manipulating references and sources in order to put forward his POV and/or agenda. He is obsessed for some reason with Kansu Braves.RedKnight 1 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

#1- sources say clear that Chinese victory was won in seymour expedition

User:Redknight1, pray tell, how am i "manipulating" references? How do it edit a book which another author wrote? It clearly states in History in three keys: the boxers as event, experience, and myth By Paul A. Cohen, that the Seymour Expedition was a Chinese victory
On this day Qing forces, led by Nie Shicheng and Dong Fuxiang, joined a large contingent of Boxers in attacking the expedition, and the Chinese side won a major victoryДунгане (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also like for you, paragraph by paragraph, to explain how i "manipulated" references and sources when you deleted a massaive chunk of referenced information.Дунгане (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

#2- General Nie Shicheng's han chinese troops, under orders from Ronglu, totally ignored the foriengers, even protecting them and letting them use Chinese trains on their way to beijing during the seymour expedition's initial passage, only later did Nie turn hostile

neral Nie Shicheng's han chinese troops, under orders from Ronglu, totally ignored the foriengers, even protecting them and letting them use Chinese trains on their way to beijing during the seymour expedition's initial passage. General Nie's troops even kept killing and attacking Boxers whilst Nie protect the foreigners, the Kansu Braves immediately put the foreigners of Von usedom, who served under seymour, under fierce attack "the crestfallen expeditionary troops were agonizing over the unexpected humiliation suffered at the hands of the chinese"

On the first day of the relief attempt, the armed trains traveled about twenty-five miles to Yangtsun, where General Nieh’s 4,000-strong detachment of Imperial troops was camped. Unsure how to reconcile conflicting orders coming from Peking, Nieh allowed Seymour’s trains to pass. (on page 18 of document)

#3, Historians note that the Boxers had nothing to do with the siege in the legations

as for Siege of the International Legations (Boxer Rebellion), historians note that just when "the famous boxer siege is said to have begun, the boxers ceased to have anything to do with it, and ceased to exist."
"the troops of general jung lu efficiently drove the boxers out of peking, killing many in the process, but the boxers did not go peacefully."
the Boxers clearly were not engaged in attacking the legations during the siege.Дунгане (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thus the many accounts left by diarists withint the legations of seeing no crimson Boxer bandanas among the bright silked imperial and muslim troops surrounding the distant walls of the british legation
"The Boxers, who had started all the trouble in the first place, were not involved in the attack on the legations; a USMarine officer trapped inside noted,“I never saw a yellow-sashed, fist-shaking Boxer"

#4, thousands of Chinese Imperial bannermen were pro foreign, and attacked the forces of other Chinese imperial units who were actually attacking foreigners

Prince Qing's 10,000 bannermen, part of the Chinese imperial army, refused to fight the foreigners and even attacked the Kansu Braves and Boxers before the siege began
During the siege, Prince Qing even offered protection to the foreigners trapped in the legations, using his Manchu bannermen, and his bannermen fought against Prince Duan's bannermen

#5, the siege of the legations was phony and a farce, Ronglu, the Chinese commander, made sure that any attempt to press an actual siege failed, denying artillery to his own forces

Prince Ronglu, who was in charge of all chinese forces besieging the legations, made sure that the siege was "never pressed home"
"the legation quarter at peking was under a siege that was sometimes downright phony"Дунгане (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
the siege of the peking legations was not intended to kill all the foreigners. If it had been, nothing would have been easier for the chinese than to use their many heavy german artillery pieces to batter the barricades and buildings to rubble, then send in thousands of infantryДунгане (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ronglu also ordered his men to fire only fireworks at the legations, refusing to press a real siege, he even sent men to communicate to the foreigners that they were not to be harmed, and Ronglu made sure his men followed a decree ordering the protection of foreigners.Дунгане (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
ronglu denied artillery to his troops
when the artillery finally came through, Ronglu ensured that it only happened in limited amounts

#6- About my alleged "obsession" with kansu braves, it is western historians who note that the only troops who eagerly fought for real and pressed the siege against the foreigners WERE THE KANSU BRAVES

The most ferocious and effective besiegers were the Kansu Braves, a Muslim army unit led by General Tung Fu- hsiang "The only troops from whom much was to be realistically feared were those of General Dong, with their mix of Muslim and ex-Boxer fighters, functioning according to the dictates of pockmarked Prince Tuan" "By this time the Boxers were in Peking and it was said that they were in league with Tung Fu Hsiang, the general whose Kansu braves had caused so much trouble eighteen months earlier that Marine guards were brought into the city" "savage Kansu braves — that is, his whole army — re-entered the capital, and rapidly encamped on the open places in ... At last all the Legations shivered."

The foreigners explicitly feared the KANSU BRAVES more than any other unit in the chinese army At last all the Legations shivered, and urgent telegrams were sent to the British admiral for reinforcements to be rushed up at all costs
The kansu braves were the one who were most immediatly likely to combat the foreigners- By removing the Kansu braves from the marines' path, moderates at court were able to lessen the likelihood of immediate confrontation

#7- you deleted sections from Seymour Expedition detailing the participation of Kansu Braves in the battle, which historian Diana Preston notes explicitly in her book

At Langfang, von Usedom had come under ferocious attack from some 5000 Imperial troops — Kansu bravesДунгане (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CIVIL

Would the recent correspondees note that civility is not an option - it is a requirement. I am now watchlisting these pages, and am inclined to impose basic standards of courtesy if necessary by means of warnings and sanctions.
For those rather confused over recent events, I would note that the Cold War is over and that (pro)Communist derived sources are not deprecated by their being so - and further, that inferring a writer may be sympathetic to a particular ideology and be thus ignored is a violation of WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? (Second bullet point - "affiliation"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar and section work

I've cleaned it up a bit, but it's way beyond my mental capacity. What an almighty mess --YKatakura (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been having a poke around this article for a while and the sheer lack of consistency is quite annoying. As a first step, I'm going to take the Origins section to a subpage on my userpage and work on it to make it a bit more manageable. I emphasise that I will not be adding or removing sources at this point, but will use the ones that are in the text already. Once I've worked on that a bit, the need for additional sources should be obvious. I'll link to the subpage when I've created it. --Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have created [[21]] to begin working on it. --Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The grammar fixing is appreciated. I hope all further work on the article will be conducted in this manner which you are using, rather than what was previously done on the article, namely the unexplained deletion of sentences and misrepresenting of sources.Дунгане (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Watchlist the subpage is you'd like, an extra opinion would be helpful when I start working on it. --Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for spending time to clean up this mess in the article. By the way, this paragraph-

"Dong Fuxiang's Muslim forces defeated the Westerners led by Seymour on August 1 outside of Tianjin at the Battle of Beicang. They bombarded the city and mined a Russian paddle steamer at the Battle of Shanhaiguan (1900), inflicting many casualties. At Shanhaiguan the Chinese Muslims also torpedoed Russian ships with torpedoes"

Should be removed, since we determined that the info was totally gleaned from Nianhua and not other sources to back it ip. I was the one who added it, and now I agree to its removal, i don't think anyone will challenge that.Дунгане (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll make note of that. I haven't actually started working on it yet. --Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoever wrote the Origins section made a total hash of it. It's totally incomprehensible --Blackmane (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
European "immigration" is a stretch because europeans had no intention of becoming citizens of China, the Spence source noted that it was a general wave of foreign imperialism from 1898 that was a major factor. They wanted to seize strategic areas of China and make them into colonies. "Immigration", should still be colonization.Дунгане (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You can comment on the talk page of that subpage. That last sentence is very clunky. I'll have to think about it. In the meantime, the origins sections is still very thin. It talks nothing about who founded it, when it was founded, no details at all. I'm not going to have time to hunt down books for it. However, the breakdown of that section into an Origins and a belief section should tie in better since a third of it talked more about their practices and beliefs and another part was pretty much irrelevant since it gave undue focus on a different society. --Blackmane (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


somebody add this reference to the article

<ref>{{cite news |title=Lost souls|author=John Gittings|newspaper=The Guardian|date=Saturday 5 August 2000|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/aug/05/china.johngittings|accessdate=2010-11-30}}</ref>

after the sentence "Boxers regularly killed and mutilated foreigners, including women and children, but did not rape them" in Boxer_rebellion#Boxer

the reference itself, a british news article on the boxer rebellion, says that " When it lifted the siege on August 14, it proceeded to loot, kill and rape with as much ferocity as the Boxers had shown (with the difference that the Boxers looted and killed, but did not rape)."Дунгане (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Gittings is indeed a respected journalist with academic training in contemporary China, but an unsourced article need not be used when good sources are available. ch (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Boxer Uprising?

Perhaps this would be the time to change the title of the article to the more accurate and now more generally accepted "Boxer Uprising." This woujld bring it in line with most Chinese historians, who refer to it as qiyi (uprising). The Chinese Wikipedia article is titled 义和团运动 (Ihetuan Yondong; Righteous Harmony Movement).

The Boxers aimed much more at the foreigners and Chinese Christians, not the dynasty. When the Allied expedition took Beijing, the diplomats did not want to take the responsibility of bringing down the dynasty, and adopted the face-saving interpretation that the court was not responsible, other than a few individuals. Therefore, they decreed, the Boxers were "rebels." A main piece of supporting evidence was the "Ching Shan Diary," later shown to be a forgery.

Recent historians writing in English but who read and do research in Chinese most often use "uprising": e.g. Spence, The Search for Modern China, Esherick, Origins of the Boxer Uprising, Cohen History in Three Keys, or Bickers & Tiedemann,ed. The Boxers, China,and the World. Others use "Boxer Movement" or "Boxer War." There are examples of "Boxer Rebellion," but they tend to be from those trained in an earlier generation or not to be historians. ch (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable, the boxers were in effect rebels, not a random mob recruited by the Qing to serve its own purposes. its sourced in the article that one of the Boxer leaders proclaimed himself to be a Ming dynasty heir and called for the overthrow of Qing, and restoration of Ming'
In addition, numerous officials at the Qing court, including Ronglu, commander in chief of the entire Imperial Chinese army, and Prince Qing, also a manchu prince and imperial army commander, were virurently ANTI boxer, and Ronglu even sent fabricated orders to General Nie Shicheng ordering him to use imperial army troops to kill and suppress boxers, even though the chinese population was suffering from the repression.
prince Qing, a manchur prince, ordered his manchu bannermen to attack the boxers and drive them from the legations
The only pro Boxer was Prince Duan, whom Empress Dowager Cixi herself berated and argued with, one of these arguemnts led to Cixi ordering a ceasefire against the legations. Prince duan's troops battled against prince qing's.Дунгане (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
In addition, historian Bruce A. Elleman says- "the boxers still wanted to overthrow the qing dynasty According to one poster from early 1900, the “chief offender” for China's problems was the Manchu Emperor."
And General Yuan Shikai, an imperial army general, brutally suppressed boxers in shandong.Дунгане (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
quote from empress dowager Cixi, she was not committed to the boxers, her hand was forced into nominal support of their activities- "Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?"
Thanks for the quick response. Still, I'm not sure why "Boxer Uprising" is "unacceptable," since it is the preferred term in China and the considered term of many who have done work in the field (others, as I pointed out, prefer "Boxer Movement" or "Boxer War"). 1) Though you are quite correct that they were not a random mob, nor were they recruited by the Qing, it is not our job to decide what the Boxers were "in effect." Since there was not one coordinated organization, it is not logical to deduce their purpose from one slogan. "Uprising" does not judge in the way that "Rebellion" does. 2)The Qing court was not united, so we cannot use the position of one official or group, and the motives of the Court cannot in any case be used to characterize the Boxers. 2) Elleman's note 262is to Victor Purcell's monograph of 1963, which was a fine work for its time, but is now superseded, and which in any case is titled The Boxer Uprising, which strengthens my case. 4) You are also quite correct about Yuan, but again this does not argue against "uprising." He saw that the Boxers were leading China down a disastrous road and acted accordingly. Please reconsider the evidence freshly. Many thanks. ch (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Empress Dowager Cixi ordered the arrest of and suppression of the Boxers before the war even started.Дунгане (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks once more for your quick reply. But this reference does not support the use of "rebellion": 1) Buck's volume is a collection of translations from various works, not in itself a survey, so could you tell us the author of this quote? 2) Buck uses the word "movement" in his title in order to avoid the word "rebellion," so this reference strengthens the case against "rebellion." 3) The Empress Dowager would suppress either an 'uprising" or a "rebellion," and is not a reliable authority in any case, so her opinion carries no weight in this discussion. There has still been no reason given for not changing from "rebellion" to "uprising," though I would be even happier with "movement."


Reminder- the entire siege of the legations was fake, the Imperial commander Ronglu had no intention of wiping out or killing foriengers

Prince Ronglu, who was in charge of all chinese forces besieging the legations, made sure that the siege was "never pressed home"
"the legation quarter at peking was under a siege that was sometimes downright phony"Дунгане (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
the siege of the peking legations was not intended to kill all the foreigners. If it had been, nothing would have been easier for the chinese than to use their many heavy german artillery pieces to batter the barricades and buildings to rubble, then send in thousands of infantryДунгане (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ronglu also ordered his men to fire only fireworks at the legations, refusing to press a real siege, he even sent men to communicate to the foreigners that they were not to be harmed, and Ronglu made sure his men followed a decree ordering the protection of foreigners.Дунгане (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
ronglu denied artillery to his troops
when the artillery finally came through, Ronglu ensured that it only happened in limited amounts
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boxer_Rebellion/Archive_4&oldid=1224272832"