Talk:Imperial decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol

Content of the Royal Decree

User Rjanag had twice removed the content of the Decree, claiming that: quote: again, these belong at Wikisource; a list of randomly-selected quotations is not encyclopedic, unquoted. Well, Rjanag may have a point on avoiding randomly selected quotations, however, most of the book articles do have a "Synopsis" section, shouldn't this article have one too? Arilang ^talk 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick comments

Hi everybody! Arilang just invited me to make a few comments on this page. I'm short on time, but here are a few ideas, some of which might also apply to the wiki called Qing_Dynasty_Royal_Decree_of_declaration_of_war_against_foreign_powers:

TITLE: The title sounds too long and would be difficult to recognize for an average reader of Wikipedia. "Royal decree" should be "imperial decree" or "imperial edict," or simply "decree" or "edict." The lead paragraph will make it clear that the edict was issued by the Qing dynasty, so we can remove "Qing dynasty" from the title. And maybe we need a date somewhere in there. The date Guangxu 26.12.26 corresponds to February 14, 1901. (Conversions between the Chinese luni-solar calendar and the Gregorian calendar can be made using the site http://sinocal.sinica.edu.tw [in Chinese].) How about 1901 imperial edict on the events of the Boxer Rebellion? Doesn't sound perfect, but would still be better than what we have now.
NOTABILITY: I think WP:Notability should be established more clearly. For one, the scholarly sources we cite should at least claim that it was important in some way. I'm not saying these scholarly sources do not exist: I'm saying they should be cited more clearly just in case someone raises the issue of notability. Speaking of which...
REFERENCES: It's good that we already have two scholarly references in the lead paragraph, but they might need some tweaking. The reference to Xiang Lanxin's book says "p. 274," but the link sends the reader to p. 272. But neither p. 272 nor p. 274 mentions our edict. Someone should find the right page. I don't have Diana Preston's book (the other reference), so I can't say anything about it.
CONTENT (1): All statements concerning the "background," "synopsis," "intended effect," "outcome and reactions," and "historical significance" of this edict should be referenced to a reliable source so that we don't violate WP:NOR.
CONTENT (2): The editors should make sure not to create a WP:Content fork with other wikis concerning the Boxer Rebellion. By analyzing events like Battle of Peking, Eight-Nation Alliance, etc., too deeply, we might duplicate the content of Boxer Rebellion or, worse, unwittingly create a WP:POV fork.
TRANSLATIONS: it's not always clear what passage is being translated. 朕與皇太后誓欲同殉社稷，上謝九廟之靈 means "I [the Emperor] and the Empress Dowager have vowed to perish for the country [lit., "the Altar of Grain and Soil"]; we extend our gratitude to the spirits of the Nine Temples." This content is paraphrased at the end of a sentence that also contains two direct quotations, the original for which is not given. This might be confusing to readers who don't know Chinese.
ORPHAN?: This wiki should be linked to somewhere in the Boxer Rebellion wiki.
SUGGESTION: instead of opening a wiki for potentially every imperial edict concerning the Boxers, could we instead write a page on Qing imperial edicts concerning the Boxer Rebellion or something like that? Not sure this would work, but notability would be easier to establish and we would have more scholarly material to work with than for individual edicts taken separately. I'm also sure more editors would be willing to participate.

I hope this helps, and good luck to all! Madalibi (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Madalibi, your valued opinions are always welcomed on this talkpage. Now the name has been change to Imperial Decree, instead of Royal Decree. Arilang ^talk 04:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Arilang. I wish you good editing on this page and others! Madalibi (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that this article be merged into Boxer Protocol. This article deals with the events leading up to the Boxer Protocol, and that INTENSELY overlaps Boxer Protocol. This is an excellent contribution and most of the text should live on, but it's a fork, it needs to join its parent! People looking for this good info about Qing dynasty leading up to the crisis will never find it behind this weirdly long and unwieldy article title (a fork symptom). Please join me integrating and merging. NickDupree (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]