Talk:Eight-Nation Alliance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wrong dating?

Quote -

In fact, the Eight-Nation Alliance is most remembered today in China for the destruction of the Old Summer Palace, once considered the crown jewel of the empire. Priceless artifacts were destroyed in the Palace fire, set by the Alliance soldiers, including a large number of books and scrolls dating as far back as the Tang Dynasty.

This rather disagrees both with my understanding of the situation and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Summer_Palace

which dates its destruction to a war 40 years earlier. [Joel] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.205.42 (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Summer Palace was destroyed during one of the Opium Wars! This article is disgracefully inaccurate in almost every way. A Complete Re-Write is neccesary.

Crimson Phantom - April 2, 2008 17:59

The true fact was that it was only UK and France who destroyed that Summer Palace. Not the 8-Nation Alliance as a whole.--Ingramhk (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Summer_Palace#Destruction_of_the_Summer_Palace

The first time was in 1860 by French and British army forces, and only 13 royal buildings survived to remain intact, most of them in the remote areas or by the lake side. The second time was in 1900 during the Eight-Nation Alliance invasion, and nothing remained this time.

Jenny881003 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do no provide reference to wikipedia as it falls under WP:SELF, furthermore the quote that you provide was from a dead link/not in citation reference, which I have tagged for repair and or removal. That being said here is a reasonable source that backs your statement: Wolseley, Garnett Joseph (1862). Narrative of the war with China in 1860; to which is added the account of a short residence with the Tai-ping rebels at Nankin and a voyage from thence to Hankow (1862). London, Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts. p. 276. OCLC 10947915. Retrieved 1 September 2009. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are couple sources that wrote that the Alliance forces looted and destroyed the remaining bits of the Summer Palace:

"A few buildings remained after the first burning, but they were destroyed by the Eight Nation Alliance during the Boxer Rebellion." BLACK LISTED LINK REDACTED

"The new Summer Palace was damaged and looted by troops of the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900." http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Pechino4.html

In fact, if you google "Eight Nation Alliance" and "Summer Palace", you will find pages and pages of hits that confirmed that the Alliance forces -- including American and British -- invaded, pillaged, plundered and destroyed the Summer Palace.

Also, is there a source or evidence that specifically validates that American and British troops did NOT participate in the looting?

RightCowLeftCoast loves to point out that the article is "pro-Chinese" bias and discredit the main article here and there. However, RightCowLeftCoast himself seems to be an American jingo, serviceman and neo-conservative who seems to harbors very strong pro-American and anti-Chinese bias. Just check out his profile. So why should we take his words over everyone else? I personally sense that his interest seems to be defending America and bashing Chinese. I believe the burden should be for HIM to show evidences and proofs to discredit and dispute the main article before we just let him sabotage the main article and rewrite history. --ktchong (talk) 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please scroll down regarding my reminder of personal attacks.

Thank you for your references, however they are not reliable sources. The first is derived from information which in and of themselves are not reliable sources thus making that information more dubious. The second mentions no specific nations doing the alleged looting.

You cannot prove a negative, you can prove a positive. Therefore it would be irrational to give evidence that American or British Troops did not do what you allege that they did, rather it would be more rational to cite reference of their specific actions of looting in the Boxer Rebellion thus providing a postive. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with G8

Compare the constituents with G8. – Kaihsu 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Eight-Nation Alliance: Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Group of Eight (G8): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States

--207.112.4.206 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So Canada is the new Austria-Hungary? Cool.

Crimson Phantom - April 2, 2008 17:56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.23.2 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep comments related to improving the article per WP:NOTFORUM. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Needs to be Rewritten

This article needs to be rewritten. Some of it is almost incoherent. Stevenmitchell 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

British and Americans didn't loot?

I don't see any sources for this information, could anyone provide any? I've heard of Chinese artifacts in British museums, if they didn't loot, how did the artifacts get there?

==Ridiculously speculative logic, unless you can provide a list of chinese artifacts in British museums that you can prove were looted during this specific incident by the army units in question.

You're right the initial claim is a bit dubious, though I can't see why the Russo-war research society would have any particular axe to grind . I suspect it means the British and American forces weren't given leave to engage in looting by their officers, rather than none occuring at all.

Looking at the web site of the Russo-Japanese War society http://www.russojapanesewar.com/articles.html , it strikes me as odd the names of the article authors are all Anglo-saxon; no-one with a Russian or Japanese name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.141.80 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Throughout James Louis Hevia, English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China (Durham; Hong Kong: Duke University Press; Hong Kong University Press, 2003 ISBN 0822331888) there are many references to how the artifacts were looted and taken to museums and private collections in Europe, Russia, the US, and Japan. ch (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That being said there is a such thing as war trophies. The source that you provided verifies that the United States and Britain did bring war trophies from the Boxer Rebellion period but could not be readily accounted for, yet also says that the majority of 'looted items' are from the items taken in the 1860 British actions within what is modern day PRC. Hevia, James Louis (2003). English lessons: the pedagogy of imperialism in nineteenth-century China. Duke University Press. p. 329. ISBN 0822331888. Retrieved 19 September 2009. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "British and Americans did not loot" is from an article by Kenneth G. Clark. Kenneth G. Clark is a British stamp dealer, based in the UK (Bucks), who has written books about postage stamps; e.g. "The History and Postal History of Japan's Wars: Brief History and Postal History of the Sino-Japanese War, Boxer Uprising, Russo-Japanese War" (ISBN 0954707400) and "The Russo-Japanese War, History and Postal History" (ISBN 4889636528). Kenneth G. Clark sells these books, together with Japanese and Chinese postage stamps through the www.japanphilatelic.com website, which is also based in the UK.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.78.40 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 October 2009

Siege of Peking

Why do you suppress information about the taking of Peking by foreign forces? China will not collapse just because this detail is present in Wikipedia. Take it easy. --Ghirla^-трёп- 00:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eiorgiomugini"

I don't see any evidence that anything is supressed Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Change

I made this change to better emphasise the extent of the Eight Nation Alliances actions after the victory. And as for the movie, the source is rather poor and probably not a RS. While I don't understand Mandarin, from a Google translation I see no evidence the movie was banned or not shown in HK due to political pressure. And as for the Western world thing, no evidence is provided it was in any way banned, indeed I find it highly unlikely it would be. Far more likely, it simply wasn't picked up because the cinemas didn't think it would be popular which isn't really that surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest that "Today the The Eight-Nation Alliance is seen by historians as a process of invasion into China by western imperialists, coveting the wealth of China, with the Chinese military of the time being weak.[3]" have the word "some Chinese" added before historians. The source cited is a Chinese-language publication that is not easily accessible either to internet users nor people outside of China. (Searches on major library databases do not show this particular citation as even existing.) Adding "Chinese" makes this article more fair--we cannot purport to assume that all historians, from a majority of countries, take this viewpoint. To claim otherwise would be simply incorrect. Mulkdog (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Map of the eight empires

Found a map of that year and marked the alliance (to show the global power of those nations).

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7266/eightnations1.png

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5976/eightnations2.png

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9730/eightnations3.png

First link shows the nations and their colonies in different colours. Second link shows the alliance as one. Third link even removes the borders of the alliance's members. Is one usable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wein100 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Etnocentrism in entry 'Chinese view'

The "chinese view" entry needs serious editing for etno-centrism and POV.

"This event has been largely associated with shame and foreign aggression."

Just a quick observation: I think the US or any other western nation would have called it agression and shame if China or any other country had invaded one of its cities in 1900 and demanded free access and simply demanded trade access. So no, this is not a purely 'Chinese View', this is a view held by all university history professors in europe as far as I know. if not I think the burden of evidence lies on the current claim to be documented. i.e. reference/citation needed

"The reaction of the Boxers against foreign imperialism in China is regarded by later historians as patriotic, ignoring the long standing Chinese causes of the occupations going back to the early 1800s."

Which historians? reference? we need modern historians, not the contemporary imperialist apologetics and "white mans burden" historians at the time, nor any later apologetics for Gunboat Diplomacy and western intervention if we/wiki pretend to be impartial. As to "chinese causes of the occupation"... China could thank themselves for being invaded by foreign forces?? I'm sorry, but this view is beyond me. I need some documentation and references and proper backing here. Nunamiut (talk)

"Primarily the Chinese Emperor's ideology that "China is the center of the world and has everything we could possibly want so there is no need to trade with other nations" and his demand that "all outside trade be paid for in silver coin or boullion" since the 18th century.These ludicrous demands prevented the Chinese peasants from becoming self-sufficient or acquiring manufactured goods from outside China."

Mh? The ludicrus demand that a sovereign nation should be able to determine itself to whom and with whom it wished to trade?

This statement is preposterous and and insult to the intelligence of a billion chinese. Nunamiut (talk)

"The Eight-Nation Alliance is seen by revisionist historians as a planned invasion into China by western imperialists, coveting the wealth of China, with the Chinese military of the time being weak.[3] But in reality the Boxer Rebelion caused the greatest calamity to befall Asia up to WW-II.

"Revisionist historians"?? I am not familiar with this term or labelling of historians, but I seem to remember that it has historically (!!) been reserved for historians who claim that the Holocaust didn't take place.

I believe Howard Zinn's version of US involvement in military actions abroad for example is one of the widest spread and highly held in regard among the wast majority of european universities historians, although I cannot speak for the US, I'd like to know if anyone can produce documentation or reference to the effect that the boxer uprising was anything but a reaction and an uprising against foreign intervention in and on a sovereign nations own soil by outside aggressors. and the term "But in reality" ?? This is a term no self respecting historian should use too often. Who are the holders of the ultimate objective truth here? may I remind that a very large part of the Japanese atrocities for example were committed well in advance of WW II, from the mid 20's early 1930's and onward so the statement is already both void as well as more than ripe for deletion Nunamiut (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The article still smacks of a pro-chinese point of view, thus not keeping with WP:NEU, therefore this article could use a serious rewrite. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that some user (or users) dispute or discredit an article simply out of malicious intention or even bigotry. RightCowLeftCoast stresses that the article has "pro-Chinese" bias. However, RightCowLeftCoast himself seems to be an American jingo, serviceman and (most importantly) neo-conservative who holds strong pro-American and anti-Chinese bias. He proudly displays all of that in his profile, which really identifies where he's coming from. So why should we take his words over everyone else and start letting him dictate the main article? I personally sense that his interest seems to be defending America, bashing Chinese and whitewashing history. I believe the burden should be for HIM to show evidences and proofs to discredit and dispute anything in the main article before we just let him sabotage the main article and rewrite history. --ktchong (talk) 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keeping with Wikipeida policy do not make attacks personal. Please consider yourself reminded of this fact; any future personal attacks will be meet with appropriate action. This discussion page is here to improve the article, not to make claims against other users. As for my comments, although I will admit that I have my own POV (as do all people), however I understand that any reliably sourced referenced material can be added to the article as it is verifiability which is the standard of content. That being said, both sides of the event should be given weight, and neither interpretation of the events should be given undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You have given no justification for your earlier claim that this article "smacks of a pro-chinese point of view". However, the previous comments in this section give numerous quotes why it pushes an anti-chinese point of view. 94.192.233.202 (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was giving my opinion that the article still is in violation with a Wikipedia policy, and agreeing with the previous poster. Just as with other things, I was providing support thus leading to a consensus. Is that wrong? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You're providing support by stating your own opinions, without any historical backing or justification, except by your own views, and calling that "providing support for consensus?" That's pretty laughable. So if a bunch of Holocaust deniers went onto the Holocaust Wikipedia discussion page and started giving their views, that would be "providing support for consensus" as well? Since there's more than one of them out there with the same view discussing the issue, the second one agreeing with that view would be providing supporting for consensus, apparently. From what I've seen on Wikipedia, Holocaust denial is listed under Anti-Semitism, which I wholeheartedly agree. There are many articles out there, and already previously linked but posters above, with proof of what went on during the Eight-Nation Alliance occupation of Beijing, yet there are still people that deny what happened, justifying their views by providing sources from the "White-Man's Burden" or Pro-European/American Imperialist historians, as someone stated before, or better yet, no proof at all. According to your view, all the links that someone else linked confirming the rape, pillage, and destruction brought by the Alliance soldiers are "not reliable," while justifying your own views by quoting from an neo-conservative and revisionist author. Again, I wonder what people say if someone went on the Holocaust board and quoting someone like the Iranian President's speech or publications and keep pointing out that to be true. I wonder how people will react to that. Personal attacks by the previous posters or not, from what they've seen, those are your views, no matter how much you keep dodging the point by referring policies. I'm sure there are many people with the same views as you, as there are many holocaust deniers even today, but don't try to use that "pro-Chinese" bull to justify changing an already extremely western-biased article to be even more historically inaccurate. Just because something isn't as well recognized and published as the Holocaust does not mean it did not happen. Chen19711 (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First let me thank you for your lengthy reply. Now that is out of the way, I would prefer that you do not assign to me view points that I may or may not hold. Regardless of what you believe my POV to be, the policies set forth by Wikipedia are that articles are to maintain a NPOV, that when there is an impass as to what content should be included, that content should be of a NPOV, without giving undue weight to one documented view point or another, referenced from reliabel sources, and changes should be done with a consensus of all active editors of the article. These policies are undeniable and are meant to be used to create a more accurate and user friendly source of information.

All that being said, I have not made significant changes to the article as I know that any changes would be contensious and thus sought to state my position, and begin working on it from here. Right now the text of the article uses loaded terminology that maybe negative to one point of view or another, and that is unnecessary when stating fact, furthermore due to the lack of reliable source inline cited references the factual nature of the majority of the article is in question. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for your prompt reply as well. It's nice to be replied to civilly, without undertones, don't you think? Anyway, I do not care what point of view you hold, I was merely giving an observation based on what you have written in this discussion page as well as your replies to prior posters, which seemed to me to completely lack the neutrality that you yourself repeatedly kept referring to. Again that is just my observation on the validity of your call for neutrality, not a personal attack. I apologize if it seemed otherwise.

From my views of the article previously (as late as yesterday), neutrality was completely disregarded. All of the unsourced pro-western imperialist views in the article, especially under the Summary Section, were left alone while the only reference to the pillage and looting during the Eight-Nation Alliance occupation was promptly given a "dubious-discuss" tag. Which caused me to come to this page and after reading the discussion, write the previous reply in the first place. I am glad to see today that you and other editors have given citation tags to others, mainly the Summary section as well, as resolving both contested sections would definitely better balance the article, not just to one side as previously seen. Chen19711 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest changes

The latest change is very well put together. Thank you anonymous. I vote to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.217.42 (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunamiut (talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a whole section devoted to the contribution of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire truly apporiate? I believe that the information provided in the section is useful, possibly sections devoted to describing the contributions of all members of the Alliance is in order? I.E a section on British contributions, American contributions, German contributions ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.242.235 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Article

In a recent proposal, I had suggested that the information here be merged with the the article Boxer Rebellion as the events covered here and there are the same. This proposal was dismissed by two editors, including an Administrator with the edit summary "not gonna happen", although I felt that the wording could have been done in a more civil tone, and that more time should have been allowed for discussion, it appears to be done and uncontestable. The reason the admin gave for not merging was that this article was for one of the two sides of a conflict, and shouldn't be merged with the event which it took part in:

"No reason to merge, these are quite different topics. The solution is to improve the Eight-Nation Alliance article, not to merge." -User:Rjanag

Therefore, the content of this article should be changed not to discussing the event, Boxer Rebellion, but only on the units of the Eight-Nation Alliance members, and the reasons why they took part in the force. Since this would drastically change the article, let us discuss this change and reach a consensus before making this overhall. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Military forces

Can anyone provide a reliable source for the involved military forces? In the table it is stated that Austria-Hungary had only one ship involved but in the article "two training ships and the cruisers SMS Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia, SMS Kaiserin Elisabeth, SMS Aspern, and SMS Zenta" are mentioned. --Furfur (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.71.51 (talk)

American military role in Eight-Nation Alliance

I would disagree with the statement that the US played only a "minor role" in the Eight National Alliance. Of the 19,000 or so foreign troops who marched on Beijing to raise the Siege of the Legations 2,500 were American soldiers and marines. They led the way on one of the two significant battles the Alliance fought with Chinese troops during the advance. Moreover, the Americans scaled the walls of Beijing and were second to the British in entering the Legation Quarter. Smallchief 23:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Atrocities section - problematic?

English in this section is very disjointed, it engages in too many anecdotal evidences and many links are not followable. Does anybody have any suggestions for cleaning up this section? (1tephania (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

Dispute over deletion

April 2011 Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Eight-Nation Alliance. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe that the reference is not a WP:RS may I suggest that you bring it up to the reliable source noticeboard, or discuss possible removal on the talk page of the article and gain a consensus for such removal. Also you can also provide reliable sources that support your claim in the edit summary "Removing incorrect statement: there was abundant reporting about atrocities by Western reporters." --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your “warning” but my objective was to remove from this article one obviously false, misleading, and scurrilous statement and two other statements which were not supported by the sources cited.

Let’s take up only the scurrilous – and important -- statement: Before my deletion the Wikipedia article read:

According to Mark Twain, in Renqiu County (now a county-level city), William Ament murdered 680 innocent farmers, following a "head for a head" slogan.[1]

It isn’t difficult at all to look up what Mark Twain really said on this subject. The following is the exact quote from his famous essay, “To the Person Sitting in Darkness."

“Mr. Ament declares that the compensation he has collected is moderate when compared with the amount secured by the Catholics, who demand, in addition to money, head for head. .They collect 500 taels for each murder of a Catholic. In the Wenchiu country, 680 Catholics were killed, and for this the European Catholics here demand 750,000 strings of cash and 680 heads.”

In other words, Mark Twain did not claim that the Protestant missionary William Ament “murdered 680 innocent farmers.” It says that the Catholics demanded "680 heads" The statement in the Wikipedia article is totally false. The consequences of leaving such a false statement on Wikipedia are substantial. Many other web pages copy and paste Wikipedia articles – and they do not update them. Thus, abuses and errors are perpetuated.

There is no excuse in my opinion for not correcting obvious – and often malicious – mistakes as quickly as possible on Wikipedia. Yet, you “warn” me for not consulting before deleting this sentence. Did you consult me before re-storing erroneous statements to the Wikipedia article? Why not? Smallchief (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement that has been deleted is supported by a non-english reference. I had restored the content, as it is supported by a reference, but as it is disputed by another editor; therefore, I had tagged it appropriately with the Template:Verify source. As I do not speak Mandarin, Cantonese, or do not have have access to the reference, it is appropriate to leave the disputed content, and request the the source be verified at the reliable source noticeboard.

Attempting to keep a neutral POV while editing, the content was restored due to it having a reference. Also, references need not be online.

Please see WP:3RR and WP:EW. Active editors should avoid this and rather reach consensus regarding disputed content. Disputed content should be tagged and discussed prior to removal. Initial removal is understandable as it falls under WP:BOLD. However, bold removals can be reverted.

At this time I will leave the content removed as done in the following edit, and discuss the removal here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute two over deletion

Also you can also provide reliable sources that support your claim in the edit summary "Removing incorrect statement: there was abundant reporting about atrocities by Western reporters." --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

The phrase I deleted was " western reporters did not report a single word about them [the atrocities] to their papers."

I can most definitely refute this statement to justify the deletion. If you will look at the Wikipedia Article "Twain-Ament Indemnities Controversy" you will find 98,000 bytes (one of the longer articles on Wikipedia) regarding the abundant reporting about atrocities in China committed by Western and Japanese troops. It was above-the-fold headline news for much of 1900 and 1901.

Now, I am well aware that one is not supposed to cite Wikipedia as a source -- and I wouldnt propose to do so in the article. But, why is that some poster can say (without a citation) that "Western reporters did not report a signel word about the atrocities" and that's ok. But if I delete this erroneous statement I have to cite a source? Why is that? Shouldn't the original poster have to back up what he asserted? Or have it deleted. Which I have done. Smallchief (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement removed as indicated above could be seen as being supported by the following:

Robert B. Edgerton (1997). Warriors of the rising sun: a history of the Japanese military. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 80. ISBN 0393040852. Retrieved 25 April 2011. The West learned little of these horrors. The only newspaper correspondents on hand pulled their punches about what happened in Tientsin, just as they did about most of the similar outrages committed by Western troops once they reached Peking.

However, I can see why the content was removed, and agree that the statement

and western reporters did not report a single word about them to their papers.

was removed was appropriate, due to references found in the article mentioned above which I shall wikilink here. That being said the initial deletion of the reliable source was uncalled for, as it was used as the reliable source to verify the statement. Furthermore, later deletion of the same reliable source was equally uncalled for. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronglu

The role played by Ronglu is a controversial topic. Was he a protector for the legation staff, or an attacker? Discussion is welcome. Arilang ^talk 06:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Siege of the Legations a 'farce'?

I propose deleting the sentence in the lead that describes the siege of the legations in Peking as a "farce." First, this is not really a relevant or important fact in the article. Secondly, I don't think "farce" is the correct description of the siege. True, the Chinese army did not press the foreigners in the Legation Quarter as hard as it could have. The Chinese had a vast superiority in both numbers and resources. And true some Chinese officials including the Dowager Empress and Rong Lu believed (correctly) that it would be a very bad idea to kill the 900 foreigners in the Legation Quarter. But even the half-hearted attempt by the Chinese to overrun the Legation Quarter resulted in some desperate fighting in which casualties were high on both sides. The 409 foreign soldiers in the Legation Quarter suffered 46.5 percent casualties -- 55 dead and 135 wounded during the siege. 13 civilians serving as volunteers were also killed. Those statistics indicate that the Siege was considerably more than a "farce." Smallchief (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Farce" is the wrong word for sure. During the whole time, Dowager was somehow maintaining the "law and order", if there was really any left. If we read the Imperial Decrees, we would know that those decrees were sometimes contradicting to each other, even decrees issued in the same day, the royal orders were changing, one decree calling the extermination of foreigners, the next one would be an order for the Wuwei Troop to protect the legations. At times, in the middle of a fire fight, everything stopped in a sudden, because a cart flying the Imperial flag, would be sent from the palace, with fruits and drinks. After reading all those primary and secondary sources, we can conclude the Dong Fuxiang was doing most of the attacks, and Ronglu's army, the Wuwei Middle Troop was doing the protecting. And Yuan Xikai's army was stationed far away. In retrospect, had Yuan Xikai's army been doing the attacks, the legations would not last 55 days. So, it is quite safe to state that the attack was "halfheartedly", because the the whole of Wuwei Troop had 90,000 men. Arilang ^talk 11:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Siege of the International legations

On section 'Siege of the International legations', it begins with "The compound in Beijing remained under siege from Boxer forces from 20 June - 14 August. ", this statement is wrong. The siege was conducted more by the Imperial troops than the boxers, according to Chinese sources, boxers did not do much of any attacks on the legations. The boxers were mostly into killing Chinese christian converts and burning churches and railroads, and chopped down telegraphic poles. Arilang ^talk 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Past consensus stated that this article should be primarily about the Forces under the Eight-Nation Alliance, as a multi-national fighting force/unit. Concerns about the Boxer Rebellion should be taken to that article's page. The Siege of the International legations, is a summary of that page, as supported by references for verification sake.

The newly added content does not stay focused on the subject of the article, and doesn't really belong in this article. Furthermore, the external links provided as references, lead to bad name spaces, or did not exist, when I checked it prior to removal. Per WP:BURDEN & WP:VER the new content was removed as it was not supported by a reliable source, and was not verifiable. Per WP:DTTR, no automated message was left on the adding editors talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Eight-Nation Alliance was sent as an army to do a rescue job, they had to use force with guns and cannons to kill the enemy to accomplish their mission. Isn't it our job to find out who were their real opponents, boxers or the Imperial Troops? The translation is still under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#100 years old history book, and getting positive responses.

The translations should not be considered a separate SPS source, but nor should this discussion be taken as an endorsement of the translations. If a fact sourced to one of these translations is challenged, confirmation should be sought from other Chinese-speaking editors, with a correction made to the translation if consensus deems it necessary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Arilang ^talk 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

Such books can be used in a rather restricted fashion as "primary sources" (for instance for illustrative purposes) from the perspective of the WP authors. But the primary content and assessment for historical events should come from relatively recent scholarly literature ("secondary sources" or "tertiary sources") to ensure that uptodate knowledge and standards of historical research are used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#100 years old history book

User RightCowLeftCoast， the consensus have reached, it is Primary Sources. Shall we discuss how this primary source being used to improve this article? Arilang ^talk 09:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the conversation continues on the linked talk page.

That being said, the article should primarily focus on the Eight-Nation Alliance as a force, and not on the event Boxer Rebellion. An appropriate WP:SUMMARY, with references, from the aforementioned article should be included here, but it should not extend really beyond one paragraph. That being said, other than usage as a reference, past whole quoting is not necessary in the article space.

If you are to edit the section, please use reliable sources, and make it neutral to both Western and Chinese POVs, as the event can be considered by some to be controversial. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My initial question was, who were the enemy of the Alliance Army? According to my Primary Sources, the fact is, those soldiers firing at the Alliance Army were Manchu Imperial soldiers, they weren't boxers rebels. That is a neutral fact, nothing biased or controversial about it. Just simple fact. Arilang ^talk 11:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps then said fact should be added, with multiple reliable sources (east and west), as to provide very clear verification of the edit. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See: The withering Empire: Final ten years of Qing Dynasty

• 慈禧太后随后竟然命令董福祥及武卫中军进攻东交民巷使馆区 Translation: Empress Dowager ordered Dong Fuxiang and Wuwei Middle Troop to attack the foreign legations.
• 李鸿章（当时在广州）听说主攻使馆的是董福祥的部队后呵呵大笑，他对别人说，“使馆无恙，尽管放心！” Translation: When Li Hongzhang heard that Dong Fuxiang's Army was doing the attacking, he started to lough out loud, and said: Relax, no harm will be done to the legation.
• 据说荣禄当时不但不敢下狠手，反在使馆不支的时候令人假扮盗匪，大量接济使馆内军火子弹。 It was alleged that Ronglu did not dare to attack in full force, instead, he ordered his men to disguise as bandits while supplied the legations with modern weapons and ammunition.
• 荣禄不肯留下书面证据，最后被缠不过，只好说，“横竖炮声一响，里面（宫里）是听得见的！”张分统是个聪明人，一下就明白过来了。回去后，他谎称炮位不准，需要重新瞄准调整后把目标定在了使馆后的空地，一时间众炮齐发，好不热闹！结果使馆区是受了一夜的虚惊，却丝毫无损。Translation(part): Ronglu said: No matter what, once the shells exploded, (Empress) can hear it inside the Palace...the legations were under bombardment for whole night, but did not suffer even a scratch.

Also, see:Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan

• Chapter four: Who were the heros?

The book claims that Imperial soldiers were the main force that was attacking the foreign soldiers and the legation compounds, not the Yihetuan soldiers. Arilang ^talk 13:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has stated that you are editing in a way that pushes a POV.

I shall ask other editors to look over the above to see if it is relevant to this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

user RCLC, to label me as "editing in a way that pushes a POV.", surely, isn't it a bit too simplistic? Just look at the three prominent Chinese historians I introduced on Wikipedia:

Tong Tekong, scholar, historian and university lecturer, Hou Yijie, scholar, historian and writer of university text books, Wang Shuzhen, history books writer, and Jin Manluo, and their books cover 10 to 70 years of Manchu Empire history, and yet, none of their books were being cited in all the Boxer Protocol related articles. Put it this way, their books cover many important historical topics, and Yihetuan is just part of them. I am here to implement WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, nothing else. Arilang ^talk 01:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that the Chinese Imperial army was the main force attacking the foreigners in the Legations and attacking the relief force enroute to Peking. The Boxers seem to have largely disappeared from Peking and as a movement early in the "Boxer Rebellion." Some probably enlisted in the army; most probably tired of being Boxers and just went back to their farms. The Boxer movement which caused such a stir in northern China in June 1900 pretty much disintegrated in July 1900. Smallchief (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors should avoid using terms such as "Chinese Imperial army", instead, why not we use the official names like Wuwei Front Troop and Wuwei Rear Troop. And the historical name for boxers was Yihetuan. Arilang ^talk 11:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? They are all part of the Chinese Imperial army, are they not? Or is "Chinese army" preferable? Unless I am writing a very detailed article, I don't usually distinguish between units of the American army. Why distinguish between units of the Chinese army? Smallchief (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) "Chinese" is too general a term, and strictly speaking, Qing Dynasty is a Manchu Empire, at the nerve center of the Empire is the Imperial Court, where most of the decision makers were Manchu people, not many Han Chinese were able to be there. The Emperor's clan was Aisin Gioro.

(2) Wuwei Troop, Hushenying, Divine Engine Division were the troops guarding Peking of the time, though they all had their own commanders, the supreme commander was Ronglu. It helps to understand the complex situation by knowing who was commanding what, as they all played different roles in the whole bloodshed, and because Ronglu was the supreme commander, he was the one that prevented the complete annihilation of the foreign legations, with the backup of the Dowager's Imperial Decree, of course. Arilang ^talk 13:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Atrocities commited by the eight nation alliance (punitive expeditions)

http://books.google.com/books?id=kioPAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA2682&dq=peitang+bayonet&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WveKUJj_CPS30QHm-4HQAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=peitang%20bayonet&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=zNs51BGkrfQC&pg=PA37&dq=peitang+bayonet&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WveKUJj_CPS30QHm-4HQAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=peitang%20bayonet&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=A-fRB23OJMcC&pg=PA224&dq=Beitang+bayonet&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LNyKUIGQJsbm0gGb7IHQDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Beitang%20bayonet&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=MSgwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA103&dq=peitang+bayonet&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WveKUJj_CPS30QHm-4HQAg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=peitang%20bayonet&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3F8wAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA5-PA16&dq=peitang+bayonet&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gQeLUObUNu-F0QHO1oCADA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

Seyeednu (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=MMtAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA321#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5K9BN96p1hcC&pg=PA241#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iWxKQejMtlMC&pg=PA288#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0lIg-lGwqBoC&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wo4k9an2UEwC&pg=PP37#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?ei=mRaLUPq2GJKN0QHfyoCoBA&id=vflwAAAAMAAJ&dq=Sikh+rape+boxer&q=French+Escalated+rape#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?ei=mRaLUPq2GJKN0QHfyoCoBA&id=kX8aNxOwp34C&dq=Sikh+rape+boxer&q=Sikhs+clowning#search_anchor

Fiction: http://books.google.com/books?ei=5hSLUIu2FJPp0QHBn4GYAg&id=orNlAAAAMAAJ&dq=Sikh+rape+boxer&q=Raping#search_anchor

Seyeednu (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with "Forces of the Eight-Nation Alliance" image

3rd from the right is Australia Colonel, not Russia. Russia is not in that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.28.60 (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he is confirmed to be Australian. http://www.4808.info/html/2008-05/4469p2.html 72.53.146.220 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Material and sources in eight nation alliance members

Britain

Contemporary historians (primary source)

News media (primary source)

Contemporary historians (primary source)

Military reports (primary source)

http://www.archive.org/stream/landofboxers00cassiala/landofboxers00cassiala_djvu.txt

Modern Historians

http://books.google.com/books?id=mF1m1P6BKAYC&pg=PT188#v=onepage&q&f=false

Other

United States

Presidential documents

http://books.google.com/books?id=hEgd2Cth-8QC&pg=PA6422#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=pgAa140bnl0C&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false

Primary source presidential documents

http://books.google.com/books?id=4KoXAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1205#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=k6QyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA6422#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3DMwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3008#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=VIEoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA119#v=onepage&q&f=false

Elihu Root (primary source)

http://books.google.com/books?id=D4pQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA540#v=onepage&q&f=false

Congressional serial sets (primary source)

http://books.google.com/books?id=ep5WAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1242#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nu83AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA1242#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=SRBHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA1242#v=onepage&q&f=false

War Department (primary source)

Page xv (it says page 9 on the actual page)

http://books.google.com/books?id=GUoMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR15#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=F_cRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR15#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page iv (it says 9 on the actual page)

http://books.google.com/books?id=q6UdAQAAIAAJ&pg=PR4-IA11#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page iv

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Cj235yltP0C&pg=PR4-IA11#v=onepage&q&f=false

Department of state (primary source)

Page xiii

http://books.google.com/books?id=KpMLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR13#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page xiii

http://books.google.com/books?id=BAsuAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G6EFUbf6I_Co0AGhsICIDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwADhQ

President, department of state, department of justice (primary source)

http://books.google.com/books?id=3mUHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA509#v=onepage&q&f=false

Military service institution

http://books.google.com/books?id=TLRMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA568#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6Ng1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA568#v=onepage&q&f=false

Naval Institute (primary source)

http://books.google.com/books?id=5iRKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FSRLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false

Navy department

http://books.google.com/books?id=DmdnNiWZ4o8C&pg=PA449#v=onepage&q&f=false

Military order of the dragon

http://books.google.com/books?id=xxYZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l50FUZO-JIq20QHtnoDoBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwADg8#v=onepage&q=marines%20tientsin%20liscum&f=false

Contemporary historians (primary source)

http://books.google.com/books?id=4uBAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA437#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=--FNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA364#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=9fYTAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA281#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=k00iAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA439#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oYwoAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA2123#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=H_4sAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=gmI-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2211#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yusEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA101#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EfxKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA398#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=CN1BAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA136-IA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page vii

http://books.google.com/books?id=TWZCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page xxxv

http://books.google.com/books?id=5wNarV3r3-QC&pg=PR35#v=onepage&q&f=false

Adjutant general's office (primary source)

http://books.google.com/books?id=VRItAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA429#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=LYYLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA549#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J7g3AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA549#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=j5AtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA549#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=T6VAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA549#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 429

http://books.google.com/books?id=-Dd3AAAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XpoFUY3iCMe30gGlooDYDg&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBTgo

United states military academy at west point (primary source)

http://books.google.com/books?id=WGtNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA807#v=onepage&q&f=false

Military reports (primary source)

News media and magazines (primary source)

http://books.google.com/books?id=-YoxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA658#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NzxYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yFQ9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA272#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-8RZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=34lRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=McACAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=urErAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q&f=false

Modern Historians

http://books.google.com/books?id=mF1m1P6BKAYC&pg=PT188#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=LRmj4wHv-kIC&pg=PA76#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0lIg-lGwqBoC&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5K9BN96p1hcC&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wWvl9O4Gn1UC&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=S8YtE0SIDq0C&pg=PA273#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=sXiHihVtoKgC&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8hiGU_tJEocC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 38

http://books.google.com/books?id=ahFCAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P4YFUb-JL-nO0QGrioCoAg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA

Page 207

http://books.google.com/books?id=E7w5AAAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-5UFUYTeE5Go0AHWu4HYBg&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBzgK

Page 114

http://books.google.com/books?id=McuEFYrgJTEC&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l5cFUbD7Ouiv0AHG44HABQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAzgU

Page 61 and 65

http://books.google.com/books?id=vC8eAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l5cFUbD7Ouiv0AHG44HABQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBDgU

Page 419

http://books.google.com/books?id=jBcTAQAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XpoFUY3iCMe30gGlooDYDg&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCTgo

Page 135

http://books.google.com/books?id=fT-aAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BZwFUarXMbDW0gGZvoGQBA&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBjgy

Page 125 page 145

http://books.google.com/books?id=DvxwAAAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BZwFUarXMbDW0gGZvoGQBA&ved=0CGAQ6AEwBzgy

Page 123

http://books.google.com/books?id=62QnAQAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwADhG

Page 16 page 39

http://books.google.com/books?id=TMUJAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAThG

Page 16 page 39

http://books.google.com/books?id=k-M6AAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAjhG

Page 39

http://books.google.com/books?id=VgoYAQAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAzhG

Page 1008

http://books.google.com/books?id=I5wOCyiM-mQC&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBDhG

Page 149

http://books.google.com/books?id=WAiGAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBThG

Page 149

http://books.google.com/books?id=LYVxAAAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBjhG

Page 14

http://books.google.com/books?id=_VArAQAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCThG

Memoirs

http://books.google.com/books?id=f0mkynJ-4lQC&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false

Other

Pages 22, 23, 24

http://books.google.com/books?id=EucKAQAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-5UFUYTeE5Go0AHWu4HYBg&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCTgK

Page 176

http://books.google.com/books?id=HIUTAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XpoFUY3iCMe30gGlooDYDg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAzgo

Page 176

http://books.google.com/books?id=32ERjH4JxeMC&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XpoFUY3iCMe30gGlooDYDg&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBDgo

Page 25

http://books.google.com/books?id=tFU_AAAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XpoFUY3iCMe30gGlooDYDg&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCDgo

http://books.google.com/books?id=oCEtAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l5cFUbD7Ouiv0AHG44HABQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwATgU

Page 198

http://books.google.com/books?id=zOxKAQAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BZwFUarXMbDW0gGZvoGQBA&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAjgy

Page 926

http://books.google.com/books?id=DRwdAAAAIAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l50FUZO-JIq20QHtnoDoBw&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBzg8

Page 277

http://books.google.com/books?id=mhcxAQAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gp8FUbzqKNGC0QGrr4D4Aw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCDhG

Page 208

http://books.google.com/books?id=OzccAAAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G6EFUbf6I_Co0AGhsICIDQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAThQ

Page 56

http://books.google.com/books?id=ob1WAAAAMAAJ&q=marines+tientsin+liscum&dq=marines+tientsin+liscum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G6EFUbf6I_Co0AGhsICIDQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAjhQ

Rajmaan (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

More sources

http://www.archive.org/stream/chinaallies01landuoft/chinaallies01landuoft_djvu.txt

http://books.google.com/books?id=iWxKQejMtlMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5K9BN96p1hcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0lIg-lGwqBoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wo4k9an2UEwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with editing a photo

There's clearly a problem with the labeling on this photo; it lists TEN national identities for the people shown, and there are only NINE people in the photo. One of the national identities listed must be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.56.252 (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a photo under the heading Forces of the Eight-Nation Alliance. It wrongly lists an Australian as a Russian.

I have this photo myself in a book "Bluejackets and Boxers" by Bob Nicholls about Australia's colonies sending naval contingents to the Boxer Rebellion and this man is listed as an Australian Montalban (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

INCORRECT: Post a page from your book, or you have no evidence.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.171.160 (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Forces of the Eight-Nation Alliance" Photo: I'm adding to this discussion (already left a note on the photo): The soldiers' countries need to be checked by someone with knowledge of military history. I'm fairly sure the soldier currently listed as "American" (second from left) is actually a Russian. I think the soldier listed as "Russian" is Austro-Hungarian. Can anyone edit this??? (Jan 2016)

"Soldier" or "soldier"

Thanks to RightCowLeftCoast for bringing up a point I've wondered about for a while and would like to get right. But my impression, subject to correction, is that MOS would call for "Marine" where it is a member of the US Marines, but "sailor" in this case. MOS:MILTERMS does not specify, but maybe somebody else can find a relevant entry. All I can find is places which do not talk about our case:

• MOS:JOBTITLES Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically.
• MOS:MILTERMS Formal names of military units, including armies, navies, air forces, fleets, regiments, battalions, companies, corps, and so forth, are proper names and should be capitalized. However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. Thus, the American army, but the United States Army.

So it would seem that the sentence should read "56 sailors and Marines..." Is this right? In several places above it is "sailors," and likewise "Marine battalion..." in the next sentence.

All the best, ch (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The MOS that I was refereing to are the style guides for the specific services (U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps. There are similar style guides/MOS for other branches of service as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the style sheet links. They will be useful in my real life editing!

But they don't really solve the problem here, since Wikipedia has its own idiosyncratic ways and will follow other style manuals. Chicago Manual of Style at 7.20, for instance, gives the "down" rule in capitalization for military ranks except when used for a specific person ("the sergeant said" vs "Sergeant Pepper said").

So it's not clear to me what Wikipedia rules are, if any, but I'm perfectly happy to let "Sailors" be "Sailors," if only to avoid the long discussions such as those at Titles as applied to military leaders... in a sentence or the exchange under "Navy vs. navy" in [1]

Cheers, ch (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to throw a spanner in the works but it depends on whether the usage applies to a proper noun or not. A group of marines or sailors would be classified as a collective noun, whereas the US Marine Corp is a proper noun. So, Marine Smith and Sailor Jones are proper nouns (yes, I know there is no such thing as the latter, but it's for illustrative purposes). On the other hand, "56 sailors and marines" is grammatically correct as they form a group of collective nouns.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. Navy style guide appears to use both capitalized singular and plural, same appears to be the case for the U.S. Marine Corps. I am not saying that this should apply to servicemembers of other services (however, I am sure that the U.S. Army also has similar style guide rules), but in the U.S. section, I respectfully request that the style guides of those branches be observed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if it came to a stand up fight between the Marines and Wikipedia, my money would be on the former, even if they are both capitalised. Per CWH above, to avoid a long drawn out discussion, lets go with the Navy/Marine style guide for the US section.  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So I guess no one is going to mention the civilian killing and raping committed by them, hmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD2C:4C00:44BF:E6DA:9828:BCEB (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious Photos

The photos displaying soldiers of the alliance nations seem suspicious. The Indian and US soldiers look exactly the same and in the same position in both, while all the soldiers have the same faces with the same expressions, looking in the same direction. One of these may have been photoshopped or otherwise edited. Widgetdog (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I now realize that they are the same soldiers in front of the same buildings. I apologize. Next time, however, I would appreciate if someone would clarify this on the talk page. Widgetdog (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eight-Nation Alliance. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130202044351/http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/boxer/index.html to http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/boxer/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102122825/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq86-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq86-1.htm

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Added material translated from French wikipedia

Mccapra (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)