This is an archive of past discussions about Boxer Rebellion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've been reworking this section in a Sandbox for some time and decided that the best advice is "Be Bold." It's by no means a finished work, but I do think that there are some useful ideas about how to organize which I stole from other reference works.
As you will see, a "Further Reading" section comes first, with suggestions for what to read if you want just a little more detailed coverage. I think that it would be useful to add a section like this to many of our articles.
Then there are topical sections, with brief annotations.
One innovation is to divide the primary and secondary sources, which I think will be helpful to students. The advice on how to comb the internet might be put in an independent article which could be linked in Bibliography and Further Reading sections in a number of articles. Or perhaps there is one already? ch (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if annotated bibliographies are common on Wikipedia, but they should. I have always found them more useful than alphabetical lists of titles. Your comments about each title are succinct and even-handed and, as far as I know, they reflect the consensus of the field. Another excellent contribution! Thank you, Madalibi (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia can not handle references in sections after the section with the {{reflist}}. A different solution needs to be found.Naraht (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, though I do worry (a little) about the profusion of articles on topics which few readers will search for, possibly at the expense of time which could be better invested elsewhere. On the other hand, I suppose that I should look at them as extended footnotes, that is, a chance to expand on things which would just clutter up the main article. Maybe this is the better view, since another thing I worry about (a little more) is that many articles get so long and baggy that readers lose their way. So I guess that we just need to consider both sides and make a judgment. ch (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As a writer of articles that get little attention -- some of mine average less than 100 hits per month -- I revel in the obscure. I like the idea that somebody, somewhere, someday will wonder, "What in hell was the Juye incident?" And he'll search and a concise Wikipedia article will come up first and give him his answer. What irritates me, however, is that an editor will come along and see a short article and tag it a "stub" or "start class." For many subjects only a brief article is necessary. I see no reason why a short article should not be considered a "good" or better article. I agree with you that some articles tend to get too long and in the controversies and compromises lose all focus. You've done a great job in rescuing this article. Smallchief (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. I have written a few minor articles that I expect will never get many hits (e.g., Zubi shiyi mai jiujing), but sometimes I write them with a larger project in view, in this case a general improvement of Boxer-related coverage on Wikipedia. The ultimate goal is to make the entire Boxer Uprising wiki both reliable and readable, and to support it with more detailed coverage in fully referenced but short articles like Juye Incident and Battle of Senluo Temple, which I expect readers to find by following links. But I agree that my time might be better invested somewhere, as in writing my own books, for example. ;) I'm also working on a detailed chronology of the Boxer movement which I plan to turn into an easy-to-find narrative supplement to the main article. Please keep up the good work, everyone. Thanks to your efforts, Wikipedia will keep improving! Madalibi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Points well taken. I've admired the work that each of you do, and entirely trust you to strike the balance. My concern is not so much with the number of hits -- even a couple hits a year is fine if they are useful to people -- but that we (and I include myself) can lose sight of the discipline in balancing between "Main Article" and "Also See." But this is also one of the strengths of Wikipedia. ch (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Removed Koekkoek Drawing
I removed the Koekkoek drawing because there is no reason to think that he knew anything about the Boxers except what he read in the papers. I searched Google image, and found this this drawing is the only one set in China, and that the source for its authenticity is the this Wikipedia Boxer Rebellion page, which is circular reasoning. None of the other images are in this style. The Wikipedia source page [1] gives "Le Figaro Hors-Serie 'Pekin' Feb 2008, but nothing further. Another search for information only came up with his Wikipedia article, Johannes Hermanus Barend Koekkoek, the Dutch Wikipedia araticle (which has even less information on him than the English Wikipedia),and an art site, [2], which gives a brief bio which does not mention foreign travel. Does anybody have positive information?ch (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Add the southern viceroys in the infobox along with the eight nation alliance
Lets not kid ourselves. Over 60% of china's armies, under the command of the southern viceroys, were in league with the eight nation alliance. Even if you object to including them due to their " neutral" status, at least Yuan Shikai's armies directly engaged and crushed the Boxers in shandong, after all, since the article is the "boxer rebellion", his army should be added on the eight nation alliance aide, away from the other chinese forces. the source for it is in the article.Fishmongrel (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The other viceroys also quashed anti foreign secret societies in the southern provinces, why isn't there an article on this and another one on Yuan Shikai's campaign, and on Nie Shicheng's anti boxer campaign right before the Seymour Expedition?Fishmongrel (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Reluctantly cut section "False Propaganda"
Although Fishmongrel supplied important new material, the section as a whole had too many problems: 1) NPOV, for instance, as indicated by the section title -- "false" and "propaganda." 2) The material in the section is out of place and should be integrated into the general article. 3) Unbalanced: Li was praised by "the westerners," as if all westerners had the same view (only one source is given, and that from 1917). 4) This section does not represent the consensus among current scholars or the proportionate range of their views. It borders on Original Research, which includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."
Still, I would be happy to see a neutral version of this material worked into the article. ch (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your cut. Smallchief 11:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality Review
This article contains numerous unsourced assertions of a subtly hyperbolic nature. I do not believe that the article, as it now stands, meets the encyclopedic neutrality requirements of Wikipedia. I understand that this article is one that is likely to bring out the more extreme elements in several societies. Therefore, it is extremely important, that the standards of Wikipedia are upheld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthorDuty (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Who carries out this examination? That is, if an article is "nominated," who is it nominated to? I found that TruthorDutyhad no Talkpage or edits other than adding this nomination. I can see his or her point, but it would have been more helpful to have specifics.ch (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Removal of request for citations
It seems as though some people feel that it is ok to remove requests for citations. I want to point out that, if there is no citation material can be removed. I did not do so, because I had hoped that someone would come along and add the necessary citations. However, it would appear that Rajmaan, believes that requests for citations are attempts to discredit China. This user removed valid requests for citations, and suggested that I should have just removed sources instead of asking for more. I will be reverting his changes, but am open to suggestions on this talk page, if any other users believe that I inadvertently tagged adequately cited sections, or removed information that significantly added to the encyclopedic value of the article. Please do not revert, without commenting on this thread. KeepitImpartial (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
[Note: to keep the threads separate, I moved this statement from "Neutrality Review" to this new section. I had a sincere, innocent question about who carries out the Neutrality Review, not an opinion on anything else.] ch (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keepitinpartial, you have made two infractions on wikipedia policy. you used a sockpuppet account to edit the same article in order to push a certain pov, and you tagged cited information with a citation needed tag, and deleted other cited information. In the first paragraph you tagged, the two sentences "The Big Swords relentlessly hunted the bandits, but the bandits converted to Catholic Christianity, gaining them legal immunity from prosecution and also placed them under the protection of the foreigners. The Big Swords responded by attacking bandit Catholic churches and burning them." were both cited to one source, "History in three keys: the boxers as event, experience, and myth". The fourth paragraph you tagged was entirely citable to one source. We do not need one source per sentence. You deleted "in revenge for foreign attacks on Chinese", which had a source right next to it. In the last paragraph you tagged, you deleted sourced information and the source itself. Your edits are obviously aimed at pushing an agenda.Rajmaan (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Rajmaan,
I am glad that you have decided to participate in a constructive debate. Reverting a very large edit because of minor disagreements is illogical, and frankly, not terribly constructive. In the spirit of compromise, I will assume that the citation related to the conversion of Chinese bandits to Christianity, in the hope that they could escape from justice, is correct. This said, when controversial or confusing material is present, it is generally best to provide line-by-line citations. As for the quote that I removed; I will not relent on this point. The quote had absolutely no encyclopedic value, and while I understand that the quote may serve as some sort of emotional salve to some readers, given the historical memory of the events in question, it should be removed. Not every cited piece of material in an article should be viewed as a sacrosanct truth, stuffed, as it were, with inestimable value. Some should simply be given the axe, for no other reason, than that they simply have no place in an encyclopedia.
I also asked for citations on several totally unsourced paragraphs. You removed these requests for citations. I will, in good faith, assume that this was done in the emotional maelstrom of the moment. We all make hasty moves from time to time. For instance, I hastily created a Wikipedia account to request a review of this article, then woke to find that the password to said account had crept from my mind during sleep. I did not, at any time, use this account to further my point of view. There are some very suspect Ip addresses and edits in the edit history , that may have been used to make strawman arguments, which may have allowed easier subsequent edits for the user/users in question, but I have not done such. Furthermore, I would like to point out, that it is only an indication of bias for editors to use terms such as pro-foreign or anti-china. The world is full of nuances; I would challenge everyone to embrace them, and is so doing, help to make Wikipedia a better place.
Please read the 14th paragraph very carefully. My removal of the last sentence, was simply the removal of a redundant phrase. The phrase appeared to have been plugged-in, at the very end of the paragraph, in a crude attempt to increase emotional resonance.
I also removed the following from the article: "Lenox Simpson commented that the Chinese shrewdly outsmarted the foreign forces, and succeeded in embarrassing the foreigners by escaping from their grasp, where they could not attack them or extract revenge."[1]
Bertam Lenox Simpson, in his later life, served as an agent of the Chinese government. It seems only logical, that in this capacity, he would be disposed to denigrate the Western nations. For, if he had not done so, he would have never been made an advisor to Chinese President Li Yuanhong, or given control of a Chinese city, under the patronage of said government. Therefore, any statements that he made in regards to The Boxer Rebellion should be treated as those of a man with something to gain, and thus unreliable in a historical context.
To accept the assertions of Lenox Simpson as historical fact, would be akin to treating the writings of Edgar Snow, as pure, unbiased, historical fact.
If the statement is sourced as an accurate representation of wha tis in the book on those pages and is attributed as an opinion then I see no problem with its presence. That Lennox uses the event to have a go at westerners makes it relevant. His partisan nature would make cause his lack of relaiblity in reporting a fact such as a date, but this is not what is disputed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Graeme,
I was expounding on what I said in the last thread. You can see that I wrote: "As for the quote that I removed; I will not relent on this point. The quote had absolutely no encyclopedic value, and while I understand that the quote may serve as some sort of emotional salve to some readers, given the historical memory of the events in question, it should be removed. Not every cited piece of material in an article should be viewed as a sacrosanct truth, stuffed, as it were, with inestimable value. Some should simply be given the axe, for no other reason, than that they simply have no place in an encyclopedia."I continue to believe this.
I should point out that I have not removed the quote from the current version of the article. I would like to read a response from Rajmaan. However, I will adress your argument.
I see no reason that the quote is relevant. Lenox played, at best, an ancillary role in the events in question. Furthermore, I see no reason why he would not be a reliable source in regards to dates. Actually, this strikes me as a very curious argument. Please, feel free to expound on it. If you can offer me a reason why Lenox should be viewed as a military expert, then I may see a reason to keep the quote. The quote seems cherry-picked from a Western source, to add veracity, to the revisionist narrative, even in China, that the Boxer Rebellion was actually a victory for China. Given the history of what are generally referred to as "unequal treaties", in particular the Boxer Protocol, this appears to be a specious argument.
I agree with KeepitImpartial. The Boxer Rebellion was unquestionably a major defeat for the Manchu dynasty. That it prompted the Manchus to undertake some long needed reforms to preserve themselves in power a few more years is the only mitigating factor in that defeat that I can cite. Lenox Simpson's book is colorful and some of the details he offers about the siege are useful detail, but, generally speaking, he is unreliable and self-serving. Smallchief 18:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI the situation before the boxer rebellion was the same as the situation after- the qing imperial government had no control over the imperial armies, the only reason they had soldiers available was because dong fuxiang was xenophobic and nie shicheng was attacked by the allies first,, otherwise they both were just as independent as yuan shikai was during and after the rebellion. The boxer rebellion made no difference in the qing's authority or control over china. They already lost it. Yuan shikai continued to posses the military hardware to crush the legations after the boxer rebellion ended, none of his army was slashed.Rajmaan (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I support the principles set out by KeepitImpartial and Smallchief. An earlier discussion of these points is Archived from July 2011 Here[3]. You will see that the article has made much progress since then!
The relevant principle WP:PRIMARY, that is, to use Secondary Sources whenever possible.
Of course, it is ok to use Primary Sources for colorful quotes or characterizations, as long as it is clear what purpose is being served. I would put the Arthur Smith and Sarah Conger into that category.
There are several other weak references in the article, including tertiary books, such as Seagrave and O'Connor and the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, which, BTW is not properly cited (it should be to the author of the article, not the editors of the journal. ch (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
keepitinpartial, your stab at me accusing me of being a fifty cents party member and claiming that the article is based on revisionist history in china, as well as your comparison to edgard snow all point towards an obvious bias, that you accuse anyone who appears to be anti western of being working for the chinese communist party. Never mind that the official communist party histories downplay the role of the imperial army in the boxer rebellion, criticize and attack the qing dynasty and cixi as evil and responisble for china's weakness, and in no way claims china won the boxer rebellion. The fact that you automatically jumped on the "fifty cent" accusation, is alarming. This is like accusing someone perceived as being pro czarist as working for Stalin's propaganda department. I'm not going to intefere with CWH's edits or revisions to the article, since you are blocked it would be rude to try to cut out your criticism of the above mentioned paragraphs and it would look like i am taking advantage of the block.Rajmaan (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Rajmaan,
I am not blocked,obviously, despite your best efforts. Let's move forward. First, I never stated that the article in question is based on revisionist history, in China. I stated that the viewpoint expressed would generally be regarded as revisionist, even within China. I fail to see how this, or my comparison of Bertram Lenox Simpson to Edgar Snow, in any way shows bias. Snow, as is indicated on his Wikipedia page, is generally viewed as having lost his impartiality, consciously or unconsciously, because in so doing he would benefit. If you carefully read my statement, and the history of the men in question, the parallels are quite obvious.
Thank you for understanding that your edits do appear to be "anti-western". This is the main reason that we have come into conflict. It appears that you are unwilling to let go of quotes that obviously violate NPOV.
keepitinpartial, you were the one deleting information which made westerners/christians look bad, such as demanding extraterritorial rights or attacking the other side first. There is sourced information on how stalin committed mass murders and sent thousands to the gulags. That information would rightfully be perceived as anti stalin and making stalin look bad. Since it is sourced, you cannot delete it from those articles, no matter how many stalinists would like to. Since westerners demanded immunity for crimes they committed in china and sources give that information, you cannot delete information which makes westerners look bad. The beiyang government also had absolutely no motive to make the qing dynasty look good, whcih had just been overthrown a few years before. There was a restoration attempt by qing loyalists against the beiyang government by Zhang Xun (Republic of China) in 1917 so your red flag about lennox deliberately trying to make china look better is not only original research but in IRL it also looks ridiculous.Rajmaan (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The beiyang government under Li Yuanhong was also pro western. They maintained the concessions granted to western countries and upheld the unequal treaties. Thats why the beiyang were overthrown by the soviet backed Kuomintang in the Northern Expedition. Your attacks on lennox's motives are original research, and your consistent removal of the citation along with the sentence is bordering on vandalism. See WP:OR. You need to find a source to say that li yuanhong hated the west and lennox wanted to denigrate western nations with his books, because your personal opinions are not a source.Rajmaan (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
i'm still waiting for the source on how lennox was deliberately denigrating the west. you made a claim, you provide the source.Rajmaan (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
on this article, he deleted information to portray china in a bad light and while there are tons of uncited sentences in the article, its very telling that he tagged only those which appear to portray western countries in an unfavorable light. He noticably displayed no concern over uncited paragraphs like this one.
He failed to answered my concerns over his original research and instead filed a sockpuppet report (over the socks which i prominently featured on my userpage and were not in violation of policy).Rajmaan (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I will not be engaging in further conversations with you, involving this matter, on this page. If you have any more personal issues, please address them to me on my talk page.
Note that “date of access” need not be used for published sources, such as books, but is only required for sources which exist exclusively on line and which are likely to change. The online versions of published works will not change, meaning that date of access is superfluous. Besides, should we change the "date of access" every time we consult it? Also note that the suggested guideline for links to booksellers is that they should not be included unless there is access for free, which is the case in Amazon links. So there is no need to remove links unless there is no free access to the text. Or perhaps a new link to the text could be provided through WorldCat. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include or WP:PAGELINKS and Wikipedia:Further reading#Presentation. ch (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge discussion
It was previouslystated that the article Eight-Nation Alliance is only about, and thus only has a WP:SCOPE of one of the forces involved in the conflict which is the subject of this article. Therefore, since there is content there that is outside of its scope, I am proposing that the content be merged to an appropriate section here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The section Eight-Nation Alliance#Aftermath is only a few disjointed sentences and in need of a slight expansion, with better sources, but the subject does fall into the scope of the article to the extent that it describes the actions of the Eight-Nation Alliance troops. I understand RightCowLeftCoast's concern, but in the end there need to be sections on the aftermath in both articles. ch (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
However, the scope of the article Eight-Nation Alliance is not about the actions of the Alliance, but the composition of the force. If the scope is greater than the composition, than it can devolve to quickly duplicate content already found in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
"An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content."
Before the recent changes, which were clearly intended to be helpful but did not cite Wiki policy, the section met these criteria. The "brief annotations" were meant to help readers understand the issues of interpretation without taking sides on the issues, which a naked listing could not do. Unless someone can find policy guidance to the contrary, I will shortly restore the longstanding section, with emendations to meet the sometimes useful suggestions made in the edit comments. ch (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
the (proposed, but seems emminently sensible, guideline) Wikipedia:Further reading refers to "brief, neutral annotations" for the Further Reading. The problem is that the what was originally referred to as further reading, was not further reading but a list of sources used to cite references from. Annotations especially unsupported ones are not appropriate; a source is either reliable for the information it supports and therefore included or unreliable and shouldn't be in there.
The next step is to shift works that aren't being used to reference the text out of the Reference bibliogrpahy and into a true Further reading section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Graeme: I think that you and I, along with the great number of editors who have worked on this article, are aiming for the same goals. I applaud you for starting to put the notes in order. Perhaps our priority should be weeding out weak references and replacing them with stronger ones.
In any case, let's not make changes without indication in the edit notes, such as adding the References section and changing the nature of the Further Reading. I’m not sure which “Further Reading” you have in mind when you say “what was originally referred to as further reading.” The section that was in the article as of Nov 27 was not “a list of sources used to cite references from.” It was an independent list, that is what the guideline WP:FURTHER (in the indented quote above) calls “a list of editor-recommended publications that would help the reader learn more about the article subject.” The guideline then specifies that the Further Reading “should not duplicate the contents of the References section, unless it [emphasis supplied] is too long for a reader to use a part of a general reading list.” This clearly implies that a "general reading list" is ok.
I would be happy to hear what you found objectionable in the descriptions, or, if you prefer, “opinions,” and to hear which of them are "unsupported." There are guidelines about what needs to be "supported" or footnoted. WP:LIKELY says that a statement needs to be sourced when:
If, based on your experience, a given statement has a greater than 50% chance of being challenged in good faith, either by removal, in a discussion on the talk page, or by the addition of a [citation needed] or similar tag, then you should supply an inline citation for that material.
If, based on your experience, a given statement has a less than 50% chance of being challenged, then inline citations are not required for that material.
The comments which were removed include:
1) “Vividly tells the story of foreign intervention in China and the people on both sides, with extensive notes and comments on sources.”
2) “Influential study which views Boxer "history" as event, as experience, and as myth or memory. Includes both a brief narrative of the Boxer movement and how it was viewed and reinterpreted over the course of the 20th century.”
3) “A key work in revising scholarly views of the Boxers by using anthropological views of the Boxers as motivated by religion and new research from the People's Republic of China, including oral histories.”
4) “Challenges earlier views that China was militarily incompetent and lacked modern patriotism.”
5) “A detailed, often cited account of the Boxers and the siege by a missionary who had lived in a North China village” edited to “ An account of the Boxers and the siege by a missionary who had lived in a North China village.”
These seem reasonable to me, though they could be improved. If, bearing in mind WP:POINT, you really think that there is a 50% or better chance of somebody objecting, we could remove "vividly."
Judging from my years as a teacher and dealing with the interested general public, people who are not experts want help finding what is available and the nature of particular items, which a "References" section does not do because it has another purpose, and the "Notes" section does not do because it is overwhelming . The Wiki guidelines clearly allow a "Further Reading" which includes duplication from the works cited in the footnotes.
Joseph Esherick notes that "there is no major incident in China's modern history on which the range of professional interpretation is so great" (p. xiv) and the range of popular controversy is even greater. Therefore a list with comments is particularly needed here, rather than a naked listing. The proposed guideline WIKIPEDIA:Further Reading, which I agree is eminently sensible, also allows the inclusion of primary sources, such as those available on Google Books.
Again, I would be happy to discuss particular listings and annotations.
The section was formerly "Bibliography and further reading". The word "Bibliography" has two uses withing wikipedia; a list of works by the article subject, or the list of sources (either general or specifically cited) used to reference the article. Now if there is scholarly opinion on the quality of primary sources and accounts of the time, then perhaps it belongs in a separate section of the article as would contemporary reporting in the press, how it fits together with Western attitudes to China, and the use of the event in propaganda etc.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You are quite correct about "Bibliography," but the section is now "Further reading." May I take it that you agree we can follow the Wikipedia policies outlined above? What do others think? ch (talk)
Whatever we may call it, and wherever we put it, I liked your annotated bibliography with comments about the reliability of the sources. With so many bad sources on the Boxer Rebellion, it is useful to have a rational judgement as to the quality of the principal works about this event. I am one of many who have made efforts to improve this controversial article over the years. We're getting close to having a good article. Smallchief 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged is only an essay and one of the shorted I've seen. Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. I don't think we should be putting in statements about a works reliability without sourcing them. Once you make comment on a further reading you are leading the reader to a conclusion. You wouldn't do that with a statement in the main body of the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Good. I think we have a consensus unless another editor wants to weigh in. The policies for Verifiability and for Further Reading are not entirely consistent, since "brief comments" are OK. So we'll keep the comments descriptive rather than evaluative, though often a description will allow the reader to judge reliability. We'll give sources if any judgments are involved. For instance, "uses Chinese material and recent scholarship" would be descriptive, while "refutes earlier arguments" would be a judgment which would have to be reliably sourced. I also like Greame's idea of expanding the section on Controversies and Changing Views, which could deal with some of these problems by using cited statements. ch (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Revised lede
I revised the lede to reflect the information in the article and in the sources mentioned. In particular, I could find no indication that the Boxers were concerned with the Unequal Treaties as such, a term which did not come into use until later. They were certainly aroused by the effects of those treaties, such as extraterroriality, so I put that reference in. Likewise, I could find no reference in the sources to Boxer objection to "opium traders." Esherick pp.19-21 speaks of the “widespread opium growing” in the Boxer areas and the wealth created. Cohen’s index gives references only to the Opium War, not Boxer objections to opium traders. Opium may well have been a scourge, but I find no reference for saying that Boxers associated it with foreigners. ch (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Dragon chair or Dragon Throne
The caption on the very revealing new photo was a mistranslation of 官兵在乾清宮內坐在龍椅上, which I corrected to "Officers and men in the Palace of Heavenly Purity sit on the Dragon Throne," that is the emperor's throne. The "File:Soldier sit in dragon chair.jpg" page does not give a source or reference, but a Google Images search [4] finds several pages of links. ch (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ketteler attacking a Chinese
Hi,
I noticed different versions about Ketteler attacking the Chinese guy or boy (Who was attacked, why and did the person die? - Also see Talk:Clemens von Ketteler). Unfortunately neither the German article about the boxer rebellion nor the German one about Ketteler himself mentions the incident since they're pretty short. So I wonder if there are any more sources out there. :) --StYxXx (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Just about all the English primary sources mention this incident -- although I don't believe that any of the writers were actually eye-witnesses. Some sources, if I recall correctly, credit this incident with inciting the Boxers to step up their attacks on foreigners. Some sources say Kettler killed the boy, others that he jus beat him up. Smallchief 03:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Chinese names and characters for events and peoples during the rebellion
Scroll down until you hit the middle of the document, the events are in chronological order.
There was also serious false reporting going on during the rebellion. Western newspapers claimed that the entire legations were massacred when they weren't, fueling calls for military action and revenge. We need to expand the topic further
This article could use some revision to reflect a more neutral pov
In general this article gives the impression of a very pro-China, anti-Western bias. Some of the sections that especially stood out were the Allied Interventions, Aftermath, and the Controversy sections, though the article on the whole could use some better oversight. It seems that there have been similar topics brought up in older talk discussions but the impartial slant remains. I can't be the only one who found the frequent hyperbole, inordinate focus on foreign atrocities, selective use and interpretation of sources, and intellectual bias against non-Chinese to be in violation of the NPOV policy, can I? This article needs work. Fredcha (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about what constitutes "intellectual bias against non-Chinese" in the sections you mention? There were well documented atrocities, which are sourced in the notes. But we may have overlooked ways to present these events in an even-handed way, and it is easy to be "selective in the use and interpretation of sources." Also by indicating what is "hyperbole" in the sections you mention. Please help us understand your point so we can discuss.
Gaselee Expedition: Gruesome Details and Atrocities at Times
Several editors have recently expressed understandable concerns about the neutrality and bias of the article. Editor:Fredcha called above for a “more neutral” POV, though did not respond to my request for specifics. Thoughtfully, Editor:Neptune 1969 explained why he removed gruesome details from Gaselee Expedition: “The writing here portrays this [atrocity] as commonplace, while the sourced material emphasizes that the acts were not but sometimes perceived as such. Because these details are inflammatory, greater care needed in conveying them here.”
On the one hand I agree that the article needs great care and to be neutral, especially when the “details are inflammatory.” Many newspaper reports of atrocities were false – for instance, that all the foreigners in the Legation Quarters had been slaughtered. Using WP:Primary sources from the time demonstrates the dangers of Original Research. Here, as always, we are supposed to use WP:Secondary sources, that is, scholarship published in reliable places.
On the other hand, Reliable Sources agree that the tactics were gruesome in a sustained and characteristic way. While I understand the concern, it doesn’t hit the nail on the head to say that the source (Thompson’s Ament and the Boxer Rebellion p. 168) “emphasizes that the acts were not [commonplace] but sometimes perceived as such.” There is nothing on that page or surrounding pages to that effect. In fact, there are other gruesome details that the editor who wrote this passage omitted, such as a report that “dead Chinamen with bayonet holes in them and all swollen up had to be stepped over” and that “some were beheaded and their heads suspended from cornstalks by their pigtails.”
There is no escaping the brutality of the campaign.
Still, there is some question in my mind. I will try to chase down the source which Thompson quotes to make sure that his judgment is reasonable. I know, I know, this borders on WP:Original Research, so I will report my thoughts here to see if we can hit upon a consensus.
In the meantime, since we have the obligation to rely on Reliable Sources (which Thompson is until shown otherwise), I suggest removing “at times” from the paragraph in question. It is clear that these sentences refer to incidents on this march and that the incidents were systematic, not isolated.
Perhaps we should also add another Reliable Source so that future readers and editors will have an idea of the documentation and nature of the sources.
In any case, we should thank these editors for making us examine the statements in the article and the evidence for them.
Reporting some progress on the reliability of Thompson's source (again -- we accept Thompson as a reliable source, but want to check the reliability of the sources he cites, which is probably not Original research but WP:Common sense.). The book in Thompson's footnote is Henry Keown-Boyd. The Fists of Righteous Harmony : A History of the Boxer Uprising in China in the Year 1900. (London: Leo Cooper, 1991). ISBN0850524032. Keown-Boyd has published a number of military histories of wars in the British empire and is thus himself a Reliable Source (see his WorldCat page). But Thompson does not say where Keown-Boyd got the quote, so I will check some of the obvious places to see if I can trace it. ch (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thompson's (and Keown Boyd's) source would seem to be Lt. Harllee, who became a BG in the US marines -- thus, credible, if not necessarily reliable. Fleming, my old standby on the Boxer Rebellion has little to say regarding atrocities along the road in the march to Peking. However, Diana Preston in "The Boxer Rebellion" cites several reports of atrocities and from different sources than Thompson uses. Daggett, an American soldier says, (page 225 The Boxer Rebellion} "To the disgrage of humanity....some of these innocent, unresisting [Chinese] people were shot down like beasts but not by Americans." A Lt. Steele on page 223 says..."everwhere one came across dead bodies of Chinese." On page 224, Roger Keyes, a future admiral in the British Navy, says of traversing the river, "One has often to step aside to let a dead Chinaman or dog pass"...and a man named Vaughn, (page 224, Preston) says he saw the "head of a Chinaman hanging by the pigtail from a post by the roadside and corpses lying pale and spectral in the moonlight"
Also, in Preston, page 225, author Henry Savage Landor reported that he saw a supposed Boxer tortured and shot by French and Japanese troops.
To summarize, there's a lot of evidence of atrocities by the allied troops during the march to Peking. It would appear that indiscriminate killing of civilians was pretty common. I hope this helps. Smallchief 17:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Another comment by a participant that is telling is by Gen. Adna Chaffee, the US commander. Speaking of the punitive missions after Paking was captured, he is reported in Thompson (page 204) as saying, "It is safe to say that where one real Boxer has been killed since the capture of Peking, fifty harmless coolies or labourers on the farms, including not a few women and children, have been slain." Smallchief 17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we go back to a slightly edited wording as of May 30. Please note that User Smallchief is experienced in this area and has written on a number of related topics, which you can see listed on his User Page. ch (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this useful link and for the useful description. Since the page which is linked gives these names, would it be OK to remove some of them from the article? Any reader who wants to know the names can now, because of this link, easily find them. Having them in the article does not add value, that is, the information does not help the reader to understand the debate, so they only overload the paragraph for most readers. ch (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The Boxer Rebellion had repurcussions up to World War 2. The Muslim warlord Ma Hongkui, basically told the Japanese in WW2 the death of his clansmen (including his uncle Ma Fulu) during the Boxer Rebellion at the hands of the 8 nation alliance (including Japan) was unavenged, so Ma Hongkui and his cousin Ma Hongbin would have to fight the Japanese. (Ma Hongkui was Ma Fuxiang's son, Ma Hongbin was Ma Fulu's son).
This is fascinating and significant material, reinforcing my thought that we should have an article, though I am now less sure what the title should be. ch (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Military of the Qing dynasty, Muslim Gansu Braves
There is a new article, Military of the Qing dynasty, which will give more detailed treatment of the Imperial Army than is reasonable in this Boxer article, and I suggest that there be a new article Muslim Gansu Braves in which there should be more detailed coverage of this topic than is appropriate here.
In each case, there will be a summary in this Boxer article, with links to the new ones.
What does anyone else think? Who would like to work on the expansion? I can set the article up, if need be, but I'm not qualified to expand it. ch (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Given that Western sources give the Gansu Braves about 90 percent of the attention given to the Chinese military forces, I think an article would be appropriate. The Gansu Braves are said to have been in just about every military action of the Boxer Rebellion -- and I've long wondered whether that is true or whether their catchy name simply caught the attention of foreign writers. I don't think, however, I have the background to write the article. There are plenty of mentions of the Gansu Braves, but to get at the truth of who they were and what they did I don't consider the usual Western sources on the Boxer Rebellion to be authoritative.Smallchief (talk12:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
part of the reason that they were given attention was because of the Ottoman delegation that was sent to China after the Alliance (Germany) requested them to help "pacify" the MuslimsRajmaan (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Ooops! Turns out there already is an article Kansu Braves. I've now linked it in this article as "main|Kansu Braves", with the comment that the section here is more detailed than the actual article. Somebody who is more familiar with this material than I am should perhaps consider moving some of the material from here to the main article. Also use the material supplied by Rajmaan in the next section. ch (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Infobox image neutrality
Let's not make the infobox image section biased. I removed two images which depict only Western forces not Chinese ones. Also, having 3 images in the infobox is simply excessive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The WP:BRD etiquette would have called for you to discuss the changes you propose before reverting again, but anyway I agree with you that having three pictures of foreign forces seems biased. The design looked good, but the content was a little skewed. I'm not sure, however, on what basis you say that having three images in the infobox is "simply excessive". IMHO the colors of the three pictures actually looked stunning together! Also, the Boxer events are so multifaceted that they're hard to summarize in just one image. Could we work together to find three images that would give a more balanced representation of the Boxer conflict in a multi-image infobox? Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Both excellent points. The underlying challenge is that the article has a lot of material which is valuable in itself but does not relate to the "Boxers" but to the conflagration that they set off. But short of re-working this article into two or three articles, a thought which makes me shudder, we should just make do. So I agree with Madalibi that three pictures are not excessive, but also with FT that we should not show only Western forces -- they aren't "Boxers."
Question: I don't have experience in getting permission for images. I have a number of Boxer photos in my files (though some are of dubious authenticity). If they are from 1900 or so, which is well out of copyright, is it OK to use them? Cheers right back at y'awl. ch (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
CH: If your photos have never been published, the US copyright will be an issue (see Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works). This may be why your great-grandfather's private photos were deleted, Carptrash. Otherwise, uploading pictures is very easy. You need to have your scans or downloads saved on your computer. Once you have that, go to Commons:Main Page or any other page on Wikimedia Commons. You will be automatically logged in. On the left-hand side under "Participate", click "Upload file" and follow the simple step-by-step instructions. You will have to find your file on your computer, select "This file is not my own work", add a "Source" and an "Author" (author can be "unknown"), then select the copyright status of the file ("The copyright has definitely expired in the United States"), and finally give your file a title and a basic description. That's basically it. Any picture that has been published before 1923 is in the public domain. The main reason why files get deleted is that they have no license tags or they are not properly sourced. You can tag your pictures with {{PD-1923}} (if they were published before 1923) and {{PD-China}} (even if they were unpublished). I don't know about all the technicalities, but I know someone who does. If you need more detailed help on a specific picture, ask me on my talk page. Hope we can see your new pictures soon! Madalibi (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you just try one of your 1900 images, do the "out of copyright" thing and see what happens. Best and most likely (opinion) is that nothing happens. The pictures pass muster. However someone might show up and inform us that under Chinese Imperial copyright laws things are copyrighted (rightten?) for a thousand years and blah blah blah. I have seen strange things in the copy right arena. But to begin with, post and let's see what happened. My Boxer pictures, taken by my great grandfather, have been removed years ago so I am not inclined to root through my archives any more. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
To get back to that infobox issue... If we had to settle on a single picture for the infobox, I think the best choice by far would be File:Boxer-tianjing-left.jpeg. This page is about the Boxers, and this is one of very few unstaged pictures of the Boxers before the victory of the Eight-Nation Alliance. Feel free to revert and discuss, but I've changed the infobox picture to show you what it would look like. Madalibi (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That picture is fine with me, but I will mention that this article NOT about the Boxw=ers but about the Boxer Rebellion, which is a much wider topic. Carptrash (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough. :) I should have said that the whole thing is named after them, so having a picture of them in the infobox shouldn't be controversial. Madalibi (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Sources for data
If you guys want to get this article to GA status, the lack of citations issue needs to be addressed. The GA criteria requires citations for statistics. Right now, a lot of the figures in the infobox don't have citations. The data table/template in the "The allied interventions and the Boxer War" also doesn't appear to have a source for the numbers. The easiest solution is to delete these unsourced figures, but I do't think finding sources for these should be too difficult.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Good point! I think it's better to look for sources than to delete. It takes more time, but the end content will be much better. The second data table you mention looks odd. Warships were certainly not among the forces that relieved the legations, and the number of troops for each country is very different from the figures given in Peter Harrington's Peking 1900: The Boxer Rebellion, p. 31. I don't know how reliable Harrington's figures are, mind you, but 18,000 seems more realistic (and closer to what I've heard) than the more than 55,000 found in the unsourced table. Madalibi (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
In the past I've tried to sort out the statistics on the Boxer Rebellion. 18,000 is probably accurate for the army that left Tianjin to relieve the Siege of the Legations and capture Beijing. {Probably only about 10,000 got there as many soldiers fell out along the way.) The 55,000 figure may refer to all the foreign forces who were in northern China at the time. Certainly nowhere near that figure were in any battle or single place during the Rebellion. I'm not aware of where the 55,000 number comes from.
Thanks for doing a great job on this article -- which has gone through many iterations and controversies. May we finally get an end product that is good! Smallchief (talk17:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I would question the casualty figures in the infobox also. 2,500 casualties among foreign troops? Maybe if you'e counting minor wounds, but the casualty figures in this table seem to refer to deaths only. Combat deaths among foreign troops probably didn't exceed a few hundred -- unless the Russians suffered a lot of casualties in Manchuria that I'm not aware of. I'd like to come with a more realistic figure. Smallchief (talk12:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I find these figures very dubious too. The allied forces could not possibly have lost more men than the entire imperial army. Many Chinese divisions were so badly decimated in 1900 that they were soon disbanded. There are available figures for the Seymour Expedition (62 killed and 228 wounded, says Diana Preston), but none that I know of for the Gaselee Expedition. I'll try to find something... The figure of 100,000 civilians killed by the Boxers is absolutely preposterous. And that doesn't even count "32,000" Chinese Christians, who were actually the Boxers' main targets. Four sources are cited in the footnote: three books without page numbers, and a website's welcome page. Let me make this invisible as we investigate. Thanks for pointing this out, Smallchief! Madalibi (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a disgrace that this article, which gets about one million hits every year (!), is still only a C-class article. How about we make a collective effort to bring it to B, and then GA (Good article) status? The article is so big that it has a lot of inertia, but we could split work by sections, or do some kind of section-by-section review according to the GA criteria. No single editor should have to improve or review the entire article: just pick a section or subsection and either tell us what's wrong with it or make the improvements yourself. Even single comments would be useful! I'm currently working on the messiest section, "Chinese forces", which I plan to abridge dramatically. Any volunteers for other sections? Madalibi (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Here, here! The article has accumulated a lot of valuable material that landed here because there was no place else for it. Now is the time for a re-working, which would create more room for expansion of the associated articles, so we should be able to make everyone happy. As many of the editors on this page know, but just to be safe, there is a parallel effort on such articles as First Opium War and Second Opium War, to say nothing of Qing Dynasty. Madalibi has also done heroic work on Military of the Qing dynasty. ch (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It was far from heroic, and then I left it there to dry. Thank you for dramatically improving the lede of that article! For my work on the "Chinese forces" section of this article, I've cleaned up Hushenying and created Peking Field Force (still looking like a stub), and I'm almost done rewriting Kansu Braves with full references. A new article should also be created for Nie Shicheng's Tenacious Army. Many of these military units will eventually be discussed in more depth in the oddly named "Wuwei Troop", which I've requested be moved to Guards Army (Qing Dynasty) (see Talk:Wuwei Troop#Requested move). (The Guards Army was the new metropolitan force that Ronglu organized in the fall of 1898 on Cixi's orders, and in which he integrated Nie Shicheng's "Tenacious Army", Dong Fuxiang's "Kansu Braves", the "Peking Field Force", and Yuan Shikai's "Newly Established Army".)
Section 7 ("Chinese forces") should arguably not be there at all. First, if we have a section on Chinese forces, we will also need a section on "Foreign forces", which would be an enormous hassle considering how many nations were represented. Such details could appear in a new article on the Boxer War, which could concentrate on the events from very late May to about mid September 1900. In this article, I propose we introduce the various Chinese armies when they first come up in the article. Otherwise the narrative gets broken. If a reader wants to understand why "a Japanese diplomat was murdered by the soldiers of General Dong Fuxiang" (in the intro to "1900: a year of disasters"), he or she has to go down 19 section titles below to find out who Dong Fuxiang was, and that he was commanding the Kansu Braves. Actually the Kansu Braves were very much intertwined with the beginning of the Boxer crisis, so I say we should just integrate them into the main story (see details at Kansu Braves).
The main weakness of this article is its structure. The events of late May to mid September 1900 would be much easier to follow if we simply told the story as it unfolded instead of jumping back and forth. Right now, sections 3 ("1900: a year of disasters") and 4 ("The allied interventions and the Boxer War") overlap all the time, so the story is hard to follow. One example among many: we only read about the failed Seymour Expedition of June 11–26, 1900, after we've read about the lifting of the siege of the legations and the Qing court's evacuation to Xi'an (both September 1900)! If we told the story chronologically we would need digressions to explain massacres of Christians and the Russian seizure of Manchuria, but otherwise the story would flow much more naturally.
SUMMARY: I propose we integrate the information from section 7 into the story, and tell that story as chronologically as possible! Madalibi (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The easiest solution is to split the "Chinese forces" section into a new article or simply delete it. Does that section contain any essential material?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, it contains bits and pieces of useful info that would have to be plucked out carefully and reinserted elsewhere in the article until nothing useful is left and the section can be deleted. Splitting implies that an article on "Chinese forces" would be useful even without another half on "Foreign forces", whereas deleting too fast would make some useful info harder to retrieve. I've been working on Kansu Braves to understand the topic better, and I'm almost ready to proceed with this section. Of course anybody is welcome to start before me! Is there a section you'd like to work on, FutureTrillionaire? Or maybe the pictures and their captions? Madalibi (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I got very bold and I merged sections 3 and 4 into a large section renamed "Boxer War". It's designed to be mostly chronological except for the two sections on the massacre of Christians (took place in Shanxi in July) and the Russian invasion of Manchuria (from May to Sept in the Northeast). The pictures are a complete mess, but they can be reorganized. Some transitions are not particularly smooth, but by placing a few key sentences in the right places, some sections already link up better than they used to. This is a working draft, not an end product (the end product should probably not have that many level-3 subsections within any level-2 section). Before you get tempted to revert, please try to think of how this kind of reshuffling could dramatically improve the article! Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've reshuffled the images so that no section title gets pushed around. Apart from one or two content edits, I barely changed any content, but I think the text flows much better now that it's organized chronologically. A lot of wordy content can still be summarized, cut, or merged, but I'll take care of that tomorrow. Over and out here in China, where it's past 1am! Madalibi (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've completed my dismantling of the "Chinese forces" section, which no longer exists! I integrated lots of useful information into parts of the article where it improves the narrative, and deleted the rest. I explained every single move and deletion in detail in my edit summaries, so any bit of info can be easily found. I think we're making progress, but this is only the beginning, as the text is still wordy, badly referenced, and often inaccurate. I'm about to get a lot busier in real life, but I will try to keep working on this in the next few days. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Rev. Dr. Robert S, MacArthur on the Boxers and missionary work in China, he mentioned that Americans massacred Chinese during the anti-Chinese riots in the 19th century and it was hypocritical for Americans to complain of Boxer massacres of Americans in China.
A note on Edgerton as a source for Russian occupation of Manchuria
One author, Robert B. Edgerton ripped this image out of context, implying that it was of Chinese beheaded by Russians during the war in his book Warriors of the Rising Sun: A History of the Japanese Military
The image (between pages 166 and 167 of From Tokio through Manchuria with the Japanese By Louis Livingston Seaman) is actually of Chinese bandits beheaded by other Chinese bandits, and it happened after the Boxer rebellion and had nothing to do with Russians. Dr. Seaman even captioned it "HOW MANCHURIAN BANDITS PUNISH THEIR ENEMIES", and the only time he mentions beheading is when several Russians were beheaded by Chinese bandits
I think we should keep the casualty figures (in the infobox) hidden until we have something more conclusive to work with than a single reference for non-Christian civilian casualties. The figure of 100,000 given by Rudolph Rummel (here) is a "consolidated" number based on Pelissier's 1967 citation of a primary source claiming that 250,000 may have died in Beijing during the siege if the legations (mostly killed by Boxers), and the figure of 32,000 Chinese Christian dead given by O'Connor in 1973. Rummel can do no better than guess, because historians have no way to assess the number of non-Christian civilian dead during and after the uprising. I haven't seen any other historian discuss this issue either. I'm taking time off the Wiki to work on real-life matters, but other editors are welcome to consult some notes I put in User:Madalibi/Boxer casualties and reach their own conclusions. Madalibi (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Pinging all the editors who have taken part in discussions over the last few weeks or whose edits are discussed here: Smallchief, FutureTrillionaire, CWH, Carptrash, Rajmaan, and Stumink. I'm temporarily withdrawing from Wikipedia to work on real-life stuff, but I'd like to ask for your advice on how to present casualty figures in the infobox.
Some time ago, I removed a lot of unnecessary sources about casualties from the infobox, and hid what was left until we could come up with reliable casualty figures for missionaries, foreign and Chinese soldiers, and Chinese Christians. Stumink has recently made some of the figures visible again, arguing that the Rummel source (found here) was reliable and that the figure of 100,000 civilians killed by the Boxers was therefore verified.[5] I reverted, arguing that Rummel's numbers were only a guess, and that civilian casualties were the most uncertain of all those we have, so it was better to keep everything hidden until we could present something more complete and balanced.[6]. An IP has made them visible again, saying that it was better to have something than nothing.[7] I disagree, so I have reverted again and taken this to the talk page. Remember that this page gets 2500 daily hits, so we can mislead a lot of people in a very short time. Here's my analysis.
We have fairly accurate casualty figures for foreign missionaries (about 236), the Seymour Expedition (62 dead and either 212 [Esherick] or 228 [Preston] wounded), the Gaselee Expedition (about 2,000 foreign soldiers and 20,000 imperial troops killed), and even for Chinese Christians (between 20 and 32,000, probably closer to the latter than the former). On the other hand, historians have basically no idea how many non-Christian Chinese civilians were killed either by the Boxers (not sure why the Boxers would have killed non-Christians: maybe when they burned parts of Beijing?) or by foreign troops. Yet the only two figures that Stumink and the IP reinserted into the infobox right now are those very figures, with a little footnote mark implying that they are supported by reliable sources. This makes the infobox both misleading (because these figures are not well supported by RS) and unbalanced (because they present only Chinese civilian casualties and nothing else).
Rummel's figure of 100,000 is what he calls a "consolidated" figure between 32,000 Chinese Christians killed by Boxers, and the figure of 250,000 given in a primary source cited in Roger Pelissier's The Awakening of China (1967, translated from a 1963 French book). That primary source says, "A friend of mine reckoned that 250,000 persons lost their lives in Peking that summer" (See this snippet, which unfortunately doesn't show Pelissier's analysis.) This pure guess by an unnamed foreigner ("a friend of mine") is the only figure we have about non-Christian Chinese casualties during the uprising. It certainly does not constitute a reliable figure from which to derive a "consolidated" number of 100,000.
In light of this, I think it's much better to give no figures at all than to present only a guessed numbers on Chinese civilian casualties, which is the group of casualties we know the least about. What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that removing these figures and waiting for reliable ones will probably be a waiting for Godot event, but I believe that this is what we should do. When no trustworthy figures are to be had, then use none. Carptrash (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Carptrash: Thanks for your comment! I agree that we'll probably never find reliable figures for non-Christian Chinese civilian casualties. But we do have good casualty figures for soldiers, missionaries, and Chinese Christians. I'll add them to the infobox in a few days after I get home and regain access to my books. Best, Madalibi (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. my grandfather was a child in China during this period and used to tell stories about hiding in haystacks and the like. I even posted one of his father's pictures but it has not stood the test of time. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's better to give no figure than a wild-assed guess. There is no way to know the total number of civilian casualties and no such specific number should go in the info box.
The fact that we have found no number in a secondary source indicates the problem, that is, the evidence is too scattered and incomplete to justify it. ch (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeing that Yuan Shikai's pacficiation campaigns in Shandong (where he massacred both Boxers and their male relatives) is barely mentioned in a single sentence here, I doubt anyone counted the number of Boxers and civilians he killed in Shandong in their final casualty figures. But his actions in Zhili were done in coordination with the Eight Nation Alliance so the civilian and Boxer casualties there might have been counted. And fyi, someone needs to create new articles on Yuan Shikai's anti-Boxer Shandong campaign and Nie Shicheng's original Boxer suppresion campaign before the Seymour Expedition, mentioning these major operations in just one sentence here doesn't cut it. Yuan was well known for his harsh measures in Shandong.Rajmaan (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Rajmaan is absolutely right, once again, that Yuan was brutal, and it is also true that the Allies were barbaric beyond belief in their random slaughter of innocent Chinese. My objection is only to putting a specific number on these casualties based on guesswork.
I can also report that I looked back over Jim Hevia's English Lessons (Duke UP 2003) esp. the chapter "A Reign of Terror: Punishment and Retribution in Beijing and its Environs." He gives horrifying and detailed accounts of the punitive campaigns, random killing, and torture, but I can't find a total number of casualties. He would have these numbers if anybody did. ch (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No USMC at embassy in Beijing?
I've searched for something on this for a while, but haven't found it here or anwyhere else. In his memoirs, while discussing the mid-'80s spy scandal involving some of the Marine guards at the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Barry Goldwaterasserted that China (at that time) refused to allow the Marines to guard the embassy in Beijing due to the Corps' role in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion, so instead the task was handled by retired officers from all branches of the service, which he suggested was a better model for all U.S. embassies overseas (although it seems that the Marines are at the embassy in Beijing now).
There's a detailed account in "The Marine Corps and the State Department: Enduring Partners in United States Foreign Policy, 1798-2007," by Leo J. Daugherty III, pp. 214-216. Goldwater's account isn't quite right. Marines did form the initial guard for the U.S. Liaison Office in Beijing established in May, 1973, and served there for about a year. Due to Chinese protests, they were gradually withdrawn and replaced by civilian guards in 1974. However, when formal relations with China were established and an actual embassy (as opposed to the Liaison Office) was opened at the beginning of 1980, it had the usual Marine guard. Mahousu (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find any reference which said the Chinese protests were due to experiences during the Boxer Rebellion. An article I found in the May 27, 1974 Miami News (available via Google news) claims the Marines were "ousted" for carousing. I wouldn't call the account there particularly authoritative, though. Mahousu (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Third Party requested in advance of formal RFC arbitration; Seymour's Expeditions "Luckily" found the Boxer's rifle cache
User:Philg88 is an admin-licensed, respected, high-output and high-quality contributor to the WP project, with especial expertise in Chinese affairs and in describing civilian, societal, cultural and Chinese-specific topics. He has contributed thousands of useful edits and a quick quality check of his work shows out of twenty randomly selected edits, 19 are definitely contributory and 1 is at least debatable, indicating a success rate of positive change to Wikipedia of at least 95%. However, despite his ADMIN status, which is all the more reason that he should be aware of ALL WP POLICIES, he is apparently unaware that in 2008/2009 in WP:MILHIST extreme hundreds-of-editors and sensitive Holocaust issue editors involved, WP has firmly established that project will be NPOV even when the enemy is the National Socialist Party's SS Shock Battalions run by Adolf Hitler himself (precise words of NPOV final ARBCOM decision). For example:
POV description of military battle
The American forces began engaging Death's Head SS Panzer battalions on 0400 hours on 11 November 1944. Luckily, they managed to disable a Panther tank at 0600 hours...
NPOV
American forces began their attack against the 1st SS Battalion on 0400 hours on 11Nov1944. To their luck, the Americans disabled a Panther tank at 0600 hours...
User:Philg88's repeated, repeated reversion that the Seymour Expedition's discovery of the Boxer's secret rifle cache is inherently, NPOV, "luckily," or "fortunate" is POV. It is declaring that this random event occurring on a battle field is *good, positive, fortunate, happy, better for humanity.*. THIS IS NPOV. User:Philg88's stance is NPOV, and whilst his contributions to the civilian, social, and cultural topics of China, the WP:ProjectChina, and China culture are welcome, I call upon third parties and admins to please intervene with User:Philg88 before we escalate to RFC and then ARBCOM. Thank you. -Augustabreeze (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm probably the person who used the word "luckily" in the article. I thought the word clearly referred to the good fortune of the allied forces, rather than being a POV word. However, in this tempest in a teapot, I don't feel strongly about the use of "luckily" or "fortunately." "To their luck' grates a bit on my ears, "To its good fortune, the Seymour expedition happened upon......" might be better. But as you wish. Smallchief (talk10:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Augustabreeze: I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by opining about my capabilities as an editor here. Wikipedia is not a battleground and this is not a forum for general discussion—your focus should be on improving the encyclopedia. As far as the content issue is concerned, "to their luck" is gibberish, which is why I changed it. Saying someone was "fortunate" to find a cache of weapons is not POV pushing, it is a statement of fact. Peoples' lives were saved by the discovery, which in anyone's book is a stroke of good fortune, regardless of which side they were on. I don't have a fixed opinion on what the actual wording should be, only that it should be phrased in proper English. Philg88 ♦talk06:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Philg88:
Okay, I'm going to repeat this until it sinks in. Your quality as an editor of civilian, China, societal, cultural issues is not at stake here. Your reputation for a ~97.5%+ net positive balance to WP is not in dispute. The issue at hand is a WP:MILHIST conflict of some seven years ago, which has already been decided in favour of absolute NPOV. Descriptions of battle are by final decision of the highest levels of editor review absolutist NPOV without regard to the morality or immorality of the forces at stake. Military battles are described as if from eye in the sky not as if in an embedded Allied reporting newspaper. To make this issue more clear, I will re-iterate this stance from a European front view:
extremist POV description of military battle
Corporal Tom Rogers valiantly fired back against the murderous SS fire, but finally fell at 0824 hours. The Germans massacred the US 301st Transportation Corps and then began aggressions against the French 51st Company.
The above is clearly extremist. Allied forces "fall" in battle, whilst Germans are "murderous."
mildly POV
American forces began their attack against the 1st SS Battalion on 0400 hours on 11Nov1944. Fortunately, the Americans disabled a Panther tank at 0600 hours. A disaster was averted when the surrounded UK 1st Fusiliers managed to get a flare up, signalling Allied units of their position.
The above is mildly POV. A loss of a Panther tank is described as "fortunate," whereas of course for the Germans, it was disastrous. The UK 1st getting a flare up prevents as "disaster" rather than a "victory." These words are being spoken from the Allied side, and as you say, WP is not a battleground. We are not embedded reporters writing for a domestic audience. We are disinterested historians.
NPOV
American forces began their attack against the 1st SS Battalion on 0400 hours on 11Nov1944. To their luck, the Americans disabled a Panther tank at 0600 hours. UK 1st Fusiliers were surrounded by Axis forces and in danger of being shelled by friendly fire when they managed to fire a recognition flare, averting casualties inflicted by their own side.
I've already stated that I have no issue with the chosen wording here, except that it should be written in proper English. "To their luck" isn't, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Has that "sunk in"? Philg88 ♦talk16:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Great Wall
Is there any truth to the idea that a fake newspaper story in Denver became a rumor in China that Americans were going to tear down the Great Wall and that the rumor sparked the rebellion? Kdammers (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
There is, however, a Wikipedia article, Great Wall of China hoax, which gives colorful details but not a date and is sourced only by a dead link. I have a lot on my plate at the moment, but it would make a good little project to track down what happened.ch (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, sorry -- there was also a good link so I pushed aside some of the things on my plate and made and quick and dirty repair to the article, which still could use a little more work. ch (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Separate article for the actual 'Boxer' organisation
The lack of a separate article for the the actual 'righteous and harmonious fists' movement - also referred to as 'boxers', is surprising. It seems inconsistent with virtually all wikipedia articles on rebellions, where specific or even non-specific rebel groups have an individual article devoted to them. Has some consensus been reached where it was decided that this should not occur? Aardwolf A380 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Go for it!
To the best of my knowledge there was never a discussion, much less a consensus one way or the other. I would suggest, however, that it be called "Yihetuan," if possible, as more neutral and in line with English and Chinese language scholarship in China. ch (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted this change not because I am dead set against the idea of it, but because it confuses the info box, is not sourced in the article and, more important, needs to be clarified: "British India" is not the formal name of the government there, and it is not clear whether that government formally took part, only sent troops, or what. It is perfectly possible that the troops were from one of the princely states. Or that the troops were under the control of London, not Delhi. In addition, the "Eight Nation Alliance" is mentioned often, and adding "British India" would make nine.
So I would be willing to see the information added back, but it needs to be sourced someplace in the article and clarified. ch (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I think it is almost certain that the Indian troops sent to China during the Boxer Rebellion were at the command of Great Britain. If we include India as a member of the alliance to overthrow the Boxers, we would have to include Vietnam also (not called that at the time) as a large percentage of the "French" troops sent to China were Vietnamese.Smallchief (talk
The revert should stand. There was no separate entity known as "British India" at the time; the subcontinent was part of the British Empire and "ruled" by the Viceroy, who in modern parlance reported to Queen Victoria/parliament. In turn, such troops formed part of the Eight Nation Alliance so Qing dynasty/Boxers vs. Eight Nation Alliance is IMHO sufficient even though it's not strictly correct as some elements of the Qing side backed the foreigners. Philg88 ♦talk16:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Order to kill foreigners
It is often said - including in Wikipedia (in the article on the events of 18 June) - that the Express Dowager ordered on 18 June the killing of all foreigners. Is there any reliable source for this? If she did make such an order, I suspect that it would have been after the 18th.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boxer Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I don't think the beheading photos are necessary for the historical accuracy of this article. I was reading the article and was disgussed by the thumbnail. It might be apt to create a separate gallery where interested parties can find them if necessary. --209.122.208.139 (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I did not update the page because I'm unsure if the links are not there due to wiki rules, or if this was an oversight. If valid, perhaps someone could add the links?
70.31.82.85 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You have sharp eyes! Although strictly speaking according to WP:OLINK the should only be on the first mention, I linked both mentions because they are in different sections and far apart.
Please feel invited to jump into editing yourself 70.31.82.85. It's free, and you would be helping out readers and fellow editors. If you make a mistake, no big deal, somebody will fix it and you will learn how to do it right the next time. In this case, you might look at WP:LINKS to see the rules (and if you register as an editor and start a TalkPage, I'm sure you'll be welcomed by an experienced editor who will help out if need be).ch (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Boxer Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Boxer Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The Boxer Rebellion (拳亂), Boxer Uprising or Yihetuan Movement (義和團運動) was a violent anti-foreign, anti-colonial, and anti-Christian uprising that took place in China between 1899 and 1901, toward the end of the Qing dynasty. It was initiated by the Militia United in Righteousness (Yihetuan), known in English as the "Boxers", for many of their members had been practitioners of martial arts that included boxing. They were motivated by proto-nationalist sentiments, and by opposition to Western colonialism and the Christian missionary activity that was associated with it.
The uprising took place against a background that included severe drought and disruption caused by the growth of foreign spheres of influence. After several months of growing violence, in Shandong and the North China plain, against the both foreign and Christian presence in June 1900, Boxer fighters, convinced they were invulnerable to foreign weapons, converged on Beijing with the slogan "Support the Qing government and exterminate the foreigners." Foreigners and Chinese Christians sought refuge in the Legation Quarter. In response to reports of an armed invasion to lift the siege, the initially hesitant Empress Dowager Cixi supported the Boxers and on June21 issued an Imperial Decreedeclaring war on the foreign powers. Diplomats, foreign civilians and soldiers, as well as Chinese Christians in the Legation Quarter, were placed under siege by the Imperial Army of China and the Boxers for 55 days.
The foreign casualties are listed as being over 50 billion. In addition, the last paragraph of the opening summary is clearly referencing the city of Columbia game “Bioshock Infinite”, which has no place in a valid historical article. Beegest Yoshi (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Reverting confused and badly sourced "origins" material from Guenon
GraemeKad was kind enough to explain on my TalkPage "I've added the missing source. Please don't blind revert. Thank you."
I replied there to explain why my revert was not blind:
Thanks for the "heads up," GraemeKad. You were right to want a better explanation of the origins in the lead, and with your inspiration I added one. But the information I cut was neither correct nor well sourced. Guenon's book East and West is cited as "2004" but it was originally published in French in 1924. The back cover says it "diagnoses the fundamental 'abnormality' of Western civilization." It is thus almost a century old; a book-length essay on India, China, and Japan; gives no references or sources. Please see WP:RELIABLE SOURCE.
The passage you quoted (which should have been paraphrased in any case) is quite confused (it is on p. 73 here. It gives no dates, but appears to perhaps refer to the killing of a "German Minister," Von Kettleler, which took place in Peking in June 1900, not in Juye in 1897. But Juye was in Shandong, not in the "outbuildings of the German legation." In any case the incident Guenon describes has nothing to do with the Juye Incident, detailed accounts which are in Esherick or Cohen, both books that I held in my hands and examined as I wrote.ch (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am sorry not to be convinced at all by your explanations. I do not defend any POV here, and certainly not a POV "Christianity in China". The book in question was actually written in 1924 and the author keeps his information from Pourpouville, who was in direct contact with the belligerents. In addition, the book is a reliable reference. To get to the point, we are talking here about the events that led to the rebellion. The testimony of this book seems to me essential. The lead does not talk about Juye, only the text in the body. It is possible that the Juye incident is something else, but then just disconnect the two things, which I did, but certainly not delete. Thank you. GraemeKad (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Follow up; reading you more carefully, I think you are right on some points. So I disconnected from the Juye incident + disconnection from rural origin. Sorry for the mistake but I do think that the mention must be present both in the leade and main text. Thanking you. GraemeKad (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, GraemeKad for responding, and for amending your edits, but I'm afraid that this still doesn't meet my and Smallchief's objections. First, Guenon's book is interesting and important but for this topic is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE: Authors should be "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". Also see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. According to your comment, Guenon is relying on hearsay, not research (who is Pourpouville?) Second, Guenon offers a vague and confused account: no date, no names, no place. The events could have happened either before or after the 1897 Juye Incident or both. There is no reason in the passage to place it where it was, but presumably, as I mentioned above, it is an account of the June 1900 murder of Von Ketteler, muddled in the verbal transmission, and is a result of anti-imperialist feeling, not a cause. Guenon may have confused things. Third, the point of the passage, the outrage cause by abuse of extraterritoriality, is already covered. Fourth, the level of detail is too much for an already too long lead.
The author Guenon was a French philosopher who had converted to Islam and has a unique take on the past that scholars have not accepted. -- He shows no knowledge of the scholarship on the Boxers. No one has ever cited him as an expert on history--not a reliable source. There are scores of reliable sources on the Boxers published since 1980, so we can drop this story. To get the flavour of Guenon read his next paragraph on p 73: "the Japanese "are certainly a warlike people; that is true, but in the first place the Japanese, who come from a mixture in which Malayan elements predominate, do not really belong to the yellow race, and consequently their tradition is bound to lie of a different character." Rjensen (talk)
This article is broken
This article is broken, and is not displaying properly. Someone with the requisite knowledge of formatting should fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.57.187 (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
is captioned "A Boxer is publicly executed" in the article. However, checking the cited source, the catalog item "Lettering" says "Execution of Chinese pirates" Is a boxer misidentified as a pirate? The photo looked suspicious because the executioner wore Chinese soldier's clothes, while the foreigners wore white civilian clothes and not in military uniform. It is unlikely for a boxer to be executed in public in 1900 by Chinese forces with foreigners in attendance, because Qing government supported boxers at that time. The place, time, and identity of victim for the photo seems to be WP:OR. If there are reliable sources that establish the provenance of the photo, it should be cited in Wikimedia Commons so that there would be no doubt about it. --Happyseeu (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Boxers beheaded in front of a group of Chinese and Japanese officials The same problem with the photo to the left cited in this article as well. The catalog item "Lettering" simply says "Execution of Chinese pirates" and there is no mention of boxers anywhere. --Happyseeu (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Europeans became involved in the opium trade as an attempt to correct an egregious trade imbalance that they had with China, a massive economy that had little interest in European-made goods.
˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancomm378 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Canada provided arms to the British Army during the Boxer Rebellion should they be put with the rest of the British Forces? The article I found said "Some Canadians fought in China and the British commander of the Canadian Militia from 1880-84, Lieutenant-General Richard George Amherst Luard, served there. In 1900 Canada was contracted to supply the British forces quelling the Boxer Rebellion."[8]LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
You're supposed to add what you found to the article body first, before you add something to the infobox. You don't have to make this comment and wait a month either, just add the information to the article body and then the little Canada icon to the infobox. Yue🌙09:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Research Seminar in Digital and Public History
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Galaxysword (article contribs).
I cannot find any sources saying Korea fought in the Boxer Rebellion. I found a source that said "The Korean Empire did not get involved in the Boxer Rebellion. At that time, Korea was under pressure from the expanding influence of the Russian Empire” so I don’t know what that is talking about it. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe there was a Korean legation in Beijing at the time of the Boxer Rebellion, but not in the foreign embassy quarter that was besieged. Anti-Western Chinese had nothing against Korea, which recognized Imperial China's traditional authority and wished for Chinese support against Japan (though they did not get much after Japan won the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895). Hcunn (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Do not plagiarize sources
Please. In the cleanup pass I just did on this, I found a significant passage of material that was simply copy-pasted verbatim from one of the (modern, still-in-copyright) books we are citing. See WP:Plagiarism and WP:Copyrights for why it is important not to do this. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
To add to article!
How is it possible that someone wrote an article on the Boxer Rebellion, but forgot to include the number of casualties (deaths)? There's not even a section listing casualties in the infobox. That's definitely not encyclopedic. Most sources indicate that there were about 100,000 deaths, mostly Chinese. Please fix the situation of this crucial, fundamental information not being contained in the current version of this article! 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The casualties were originally in the infobox, however for a unknown (at least I have no clue) reason they were removed. The infobox is changing almost every day so I will just say wait and eventy the daily edits would die down once people can finally decide what to do for the infobox. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
It's been edited thrice in the past two weeks. I think I figured out what happened, and it was a total accident: if you look at the article source, the information is still there—it's just that it's not displaying due to a typo in the code. Fixed it. Remsense诉14:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Leadership
I think the art article should have a leadership for the national leaders of governments and military during the war. This is a list of the major leaders:
This was not an official war declared by any country except China, and the formalities (like Queen Victoria) are not relevant. The article is too long and too complex in the first place. Rjensen (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? First off I never said Madison was presedent with the First Barbary War. I just said we should add leaders somewhere. Both the boxer rebellion and the Barbery Wars where not declared wars. I do not know what you are talking about. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The point is that infoboxes are for listing key information about a given topic. If figures aren't important to the actual historical event, they shouldn't be uselessly taking up the space. Almost none of the figures you've listed above had any significant involvement in the conflict in their own right. Remsense诉23:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Also @Havsjö, if you think the selection of leaders in the infobox is presently arbitrary, I would agree: but let's do things in the right order and mention them in the article first before we add a summary that doesn't correspond to anything in the body. Remsense诉11:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@141.155.35.58 and @Qiushufang please stop the edit war and uses this or releated talk page to discuss what leaders we should mention. I still support a separate article or section on military and political leaders. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2024
This edit request to Boxer Rebellion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove the errant </ref>tag here:
Contemporary British and American observers levelled their greatest criticism at German, Russian, and Japanese troops for their ruthlessness and willingness to execute Chinese of all ages and backgrounds, sometimes burning villages and killing their entire populations.{{sfnp|Cohen|1997|p=185 ff.}}</ref>
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Surprisingly, the brutal situation of the Eight Nation Alliance burning, killing, looting and plundering in China was not mentioned throughout the article, which was the reason for the birth and resistance of the Boxers and countless other Boxers. Such an important background should have been placed in the introduction, but all the references to the Eight Power Allied Forces in this article were just the opening remarks that "the Eight Power Allied Forces entered China to" lift "the Chinese" siege "of foreign invaders.
"Siege" refers to the occupation of other people's land by the invaders through illegal means. It is the land illegally entered by the Eight Power Allied Forces into Chinese territory and "besieged" the Chinese people. It is the Boxer Rebellion's attempt to lift the siege of the Eight Power Allied Forces.
This sentence should be changed to: The Eight Power Allied Forces forcibly entered Chinese territory, sabotaged the Boxer Rebellion's action against the invaders, and prevented the Chinese people from fighting for their own land and living rights. Asdfa06 (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss changes, please engage in a regular threaded discussion here and don't request edits to make your points with if they're not requesting specific edits with citations, it becomes disruptive very quickly. This article needs a lot of work, I agree, but we work from reliable sources first and foremost. Remsense诉01:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Boxer Rebellion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The title of the chapter of "Aftermath" should be changed to "The massacre and other cruel acts of the Eight Nation Alliance" or something that showcases the Eight Nation did worse things than "Massacre of Chinese Christians and of missionaries". Otherwise it doesn't emphasise the reason for these events itself and mislead readers to believe "Massacre of Chinese Christians and of missionaries" matters more than the terrible crime of the Eight Nations. How can an article talking about the Chinese fighting against the Eight Nation who violate the sovereignty of the former but only have subtitles saying Chinese people kill the violator, without showcasing that the cause of such events is because of the cruel Eight Nation's terrible behaviour? Asdfa06 (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
What kind of person specifically joined the church? Landlords and gentry worship foreign things, cling to the thighs of foreigners, use their power to bully others, commit evil deeds, and oppress the truly poor and unaffordable common people. Without delving into such details and discussing what bad things these believers did that led to violent resistance from the poor, it is necessary to describe the violent resistance of the Boxers as a "cruel massacre" without questioning the use of the term "massacre" itself. This is misleading readers and very imprecise. Asdfa06 (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Then maybe you can mention how Chinese use “uprising”, "revolt" instead of "massacre" to descirbe this event. And provide complete information on the things you neglected and the actions of the believers that I mentioned in the original text. Asdfa06 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: I don't see a major discrepancy in tone between "Massacre of Chinese Christians and of missionaries" and "Occupation, looting, and atrocities". In any case, if people don't get enough from the titles, they're free to read the actual paragraphs themselves, which should help. Remsense诉00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
What I mean is to change the subtitle of next chapter,"aftermath", to "How the Eight Power Allied Forces Killed the Chinese". If you want to discuss an uprising in which the Chinese people fought against foreign invaders, but specifically mentioned in the title how the Chinese slaughtered the invaders, not how foreigners slaughtered the Chinese (this is actually more cruel, and is the reason for this uprising, but I did not see any paragraphs emphasizing this reason). So such a title is misleading readers. Indeed, some readers can find descriptions of aggressors' actions in paragraphs, but not everyone will carefully read every sentence; Some people will only glance at the beginning of the website (this part has no blame on the Eight Power Allied Forces, and describes the invasion of Chinese territory by the Eight Power Allied Forces and the prevention of Chinese resistance as the lifting of the siege), and glance at the title, and these messages leave the impression that "the Boxers have done bad things".
You can't assume that readers will read every sentence carefully. Instead, you should objectively, fairly and clearly mark in the title the "Boxer Rebellion Massacre" which is as important as "Boxer Rebellion Massacre" and "Eight Power Allied Forces Massacre Boxer Rebellion and Massacre of Chinese People". Otherwise, this is prejudice and misleading.
Similarly, as I mentioned earlier, you mentioned the Boxer Massacre, but did not mention how the believers bullied the Chinese earlier, and how some Chinese landlords bullied the poorer Chinese after they joined the church. You did not clearly and equally describe these two things and their causal relationship. The consequence of writing in this way is to leave readers with a simple impression that the Boxers were murderers. If you do not state in this entry what the believers have done to Chinese civilians with equal importance, most people will not conduct additional searches and will assume that the believers are completely innocent. Asdfa06 (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I do want to restructure this part of the article: I don't think the Massacre section should be a top level section at bare minimum, but I will not promise I will carry out these precise changes. I do appreciate the broad thrust of your concerns, and am going over the literature to make sure our presentation isn't taking undue sides in its characterizations of events. Remsense诉01:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your patient response, but as the editor in chief of the entry, I believe it is your responsibility to promise to make as precise modifications as possible to any conflicting parts of the entry. Since you are the editor of the entries, you should know how these entries are regarded as unique guidelines by most Westerners, and even cited by the academic community. If we do not guarantee as precise modifications as possible, the bias of the entries themselves will create a butterfly effect, constantly deepening people's misunderstandings of historical truth. Asdfa06 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not an editor in chief: I have written very little of the article as it exists and when I first read it became one of many articles I saw needed these kinds of improvements. Remsense诉01:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, but I believe you are at least one of the people capable of editing entries and reviewing editing requirements. I think the content I mentioned is also something that you need to be responsible for. If you do not have the ability to take on such responsibility, please tell me how to emphasize the importance of the issues I mentioned and to whom. And I also hope that you can respond to the proposals in my other sentences with equal emphasis. Asdfa06 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
As much as I wish articles were fixed in a short time, it's healthier to recognize it is a volunteer project driven by consensus. It is one of many articles on my and others' watchlists. If you would like to help out by providing additional reliable sources that would be useful in citing for improvements( that would be deeply appreciated. Remsense诉02:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for emphasizing the provision of sources. I will try my best to include complete sources in my next suggestion.
But as the reviewer of the entry editor's suggestion, do you also have a responsibility to search for information to verify the loopholes in the entry I mentioned? Or is it that whoever makes a suggestion must provide the source, and the editor in chief of the entry is not responsible for verifying and modifying the vulnerability? Asdfa06 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
So no one's in charge of the logic or tone of the whole article, as well as the balance of importance between details and the correlation between facts? Asdfa06 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Editing works via consensus, with policies and guidelines essentially being the strongest, broadest level of consensus, which is then applied more specifically per topic, but usually per article. We can't just override site policies for a specific article without a good reason, and it's important that no editor feels they are the owner of any given part of the site. Our core content policies here are verifiability, with no original research (we can't create new knowledge, only present what has already been established, with everything we write having to be check-able by the reader in a reliable source) and neutral point of view (represent what all sources say in proportion to how common each view is). For the latter, I have been concerned this article does not follow a neutral point of view as concerning its characterization, and since this conversation started have been putting together a list of new sources not cited in the article, and then I'll start making sure that the existing text actually matches what the sources say. This work always takes a long time for me. Remsense诉03:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand how much effort it would take to form a rigorous article including all the references. I really appreciate your effort in understanding my feelings and explaining everything to me although in many of the sentences I sounds push and not calm which I apologise again. Please forgive me for being like this because I haven't read anything sufficiently neutral on Wikipedia when they talking about China's history.
But I should not neglect other details you do have in this article and I really appreciate your time on it.
I sincerely hope this article would be modified to a more strict one. When I have time I would try to find sources for what I've suggested. Asdfa06 (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, if there's an "editor in chief", is it true that this person doesn't need to be responsible for those mistakes I mentioned above? Even if people have pointed out some mistakes or wrong emphasise/logic that might misleading other readers to form their view in a bias way (sometimes even the world view), as long as there's no source offered the "editor in chief" doesn't need to contribute in time to investigate and verify the information, and just leave the biased message on the Internet, which might be checked by thousands of people everyday?
Sorry if my words sound sarcastic but I really don't mean to be like this. Just so far I do have this feeling. I don't mean to judge you (who kindly reply to me very quickly) or anyone edit this article. I just don't feel right about how things work like this.
Because in my life experience, even if some infamous bloggers made mistakes on social media, when readers points out mistakes in their articles or even just few sentences of feeling they would make some effort to correct it.
I apologise again if I sounds too push. I respect your rules and knowledge and effort put into this article. It's just I don't think some readers view are valued in the same way, and a whole country's history isn't been taken seriously enough. Asdfa06 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to explain all of our policies and guidelines here at length, as discussion on talk pages should generally hew towards direct discussion of the article in question. Do you mind if I pick this up on your talk page? Remsense诉03:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Galaxysword (article contribs).
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Remsense诉 01:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BoxersDrawingByKoekkoek1900.jpg){kind=link}
