Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Archive 1
Untitled edit
Talk:Boxer Rebellion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to theBoxer Rebellion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( Arilang talk 03:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Article policies
No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
[hide] This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China [show](Rated B-class, Top-importance)
[show]Military history WikiProject (Rated Start-Class)
This article has an assessment summary page.
Boxer Rebellion received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 7, 2006and September 7, 2007. Archives
Contents
[hide]
1 Missing Causes 2 PinYin 3 Neutrality 4 Western bias 5 German Troops vs. Russian Troops in Boxer Rebellion 6 Treaty of Nanjing 7 Images restored 8 Question about Results 9 More detailed description of the expedition by allied force 10 Results section 11 code 12 Plunder 13 about the picture 14 Picture 15 Belgian embassy? 16 Maxim gun at the compound 17 Figure on deaths 18 The Belgian Legation 19 The Belgian Legation 20 Rebellion 21 Australian involvement 22 Reference Needed 23 Picture deletion explanation 24 Boxer's Religious Beliefs (Myth?) 25 Deleted text in The Boxers section 26 Whether the Empress Dowager Cixi supported the Boxers. 27 Doesn't make sense... 28 Massmurder in Blagoveshchensk 1900 29 ??? 30 An Empire of 400 million people defeated by 50,000 troops?? 31 Name of the conflict 32 Lead section 33 Newly-added section with issues 34 long confusing irrelevant section 35 China, Manchu, Qing, or Ch'ing, take your pick 36 Replace Chinese View? 37 Requesting consensus discussion 38 Seek consensus to modify error in statement 39 Basic Rewrite Please! 40 Move material from Righteous Harmony Society 41 citation needed 42 Slaughter, rape, and pillage 43 Restored? 44 Image copyright problem with File:55 Days.jpeg 45 BMS internal link 46 Additional sources and rewrite? 47 The article is totally unneutral. Be careful of those spiritual betrayers: Christians. Culture and belief conflict analysis 47.1 Chinese communist propaganda
48 The article needs a comprehensive spell-check. 49 Let's get back to business 50 Prescriptivism or compromise? 51 merge proposal 52 Page Protection 53 Fiction 54 Picture: US MArines or Army? 55 Gods and ghosts 56 Section to be moved 57 War reparations 58 Dagu (Taku) Forts 59 Warning- this article is not a place to spew anti Manchu propaganda 60 Original Boxer text 61 The foreign casualty rate was beyond the 200% mark.
[edit]Missing Causes
I think that there needs to be a Cause section added to the article, as there is only a result and event section. A discussion in the article of the events leading up to the rebellion and of long/short causes, seem to be an important topic that is missing.
No deep discussion. The cause, including the politics of Qing Dynasty, and its consequences are missing. Wshun
Also missing is some explanation as to the beginning of the movement, i.e. that it was more directed at Chinese converts, and not primarily at the foreign presence at first. 84.154.5.131 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
A good source for at least some information about the "causes" might be "Late Victorian Holocausts" by Mike Davis.
[edit]PinYin
Why do people continue to use old Romanization systems for Chinese? who doesn't use PinYin now? The UN does. i.e. Peking should be Beijing Tsingdao should be Qingdao Pa Kuo Lien Jun should be Ba Guo Lian Jun etc. etc.... Spettro9 (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)spettro9
probably because postal names, WG or Yale were more common in 1900
Pinyin is relatively new so most names are from non pinyin sources —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 70.22.203.57 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit]Neutrality
As a propaganda piece for western imperialism, this is an excellent article. As an objective portrayal of the truth, it fails miserably. It paints a picture of a the evil Chinese for no apparent reason murdering the benevolent westerners who apparently were there handing out flowers. The truth is that Japan, the European powers, and the US, with a total lack of regard for Chinese sovereignty, divided up China among themselves for the purpose of exploitation. Without adequate coverage of this background context, this article creates a false impression. If this were about a western nation, or about the US, half the article would be about the injustices leading up to the rebellion, and the other half would be about the patriotic and noble defense of one's nation. This article also emphasizes the poor Christians being murdered angle. Imagine if Muslim nations today were sending missionaries to the US to educate heathen Americans about the inferiority of their culture and religion. This was the attitude of the Christian missionaries in China, who went to a foreign nation on a mission of cultural destruction. The Chinese viewpoint of the missionaries, and validity of that viewpoint, receives zero coverage. This article needs to rewritten only this time with an underlying assumption that the Chinese are just as entitled to self determination as any caucasian nation. Dentify 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree! In addtion to the problem pointed out by Dentify, not enough mention seems to be given of the opium problem. IMHO a major factor in the Boxer rebellion was the way in which Western powers were using their power to ensure the continued massive sale and distribution of opium, which was causing widespread damage (to infrastructure, social cohesion, destruction of familes, corruption, and *immense* loss of life) in China. Put it this way...if the government in the USA were weak and the drug producing and distribution nations and cartels of the world today were strong they might demand the freedom to sell drugs in the USA, and have a weak US government "sign" such agreements. In this situation, some US citizens, or "US boxers," might rise up in violent and "zenophobic" rebellion. If such US citizens lynched say, mafia or say, Columbians in the streets of US cities would they be portrayed in the manner of this article? The US government has in fact invaded at least one country for being implicit in sales of drugs to the US, but the US government are rarely portrayed as being as agressive as the Boxers, who were fighting for the drug-free integrity of their own country, on their own soil. The current article seems to portray the Boxers as a bunch of savages that had no sane right or reason to be violent about anything. IMHO China being *seriously* abused at the time. People in China had good reason for being ferociously angry. --Timtak (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC) May I remind you of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Neither side should be given preference, each side should be equal weight, each side should be projected in a neutral point of view. If you believe part of the article violates any of these, discuss it in a way that does not push one side or the other, discuss how to improve the article, and via consensus on this talk page, rewrite the section in question in a manor that advocates neither POV, but presents the facts from verifiable reliable sourced references. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I am suggesting that opium should be mentioned. The only mention that the "boxer rebellion" has any relationship to opium at the moment is (incredibly) in the rejection of the suggestion that the opium wars were the fault of the western powers. In a sense the only time that the other point of view gets mentioned is in its rejection. Or there is a rejection of an unmentioned point of view. --218.223.197.215 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I absolutely agree. I happened to find this page; glanced it through; found to my surprise no reference to the opium war whatsoever; searched in vain the article for "opium", but did find it in these paragraphs in the talk page. The exterritorial rights are mentioned, though; and, as far as I remember, they were a direct result of the opium war. Notice, that the article about the opium war does mention the boxer rebellium as being one of the later uprisings caused by resentments fed by the aftermath of the opium wars. However, the boxer rebellion article does not seem to contain anything at all in this direction. There is no possibility to critiscise the "chinese side" for undue weight, if it is totally absent. There is also a rather strange attitude to consider the discussion of connections between the opium war and the boxer rebellion in terms of "the westerner's side" and "the Chinese side". The article attempts to present both the view that the boxer's were crazy xenophobes and the view that they were anti-imperialist heroes; and this has some merits, since this more or less seems to be the "Western" and the "Chinese" official standpoints afterwards. However, one should as far as possible treat the actual causes (and academic disputes over the actual causes) as separate from what impact the interpretations of the rebellion made on later development. I'll at least try to enable readers to find discussion elsewhere about the connections, by adding a "See also". JoergenB (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC) In my humble opinion the relationship of the Opium War to the Boxer Rebellion, isn't as importance as the grievences listed in the article that the Boxers had which lead to the Boxer Rebellion. That being said I would not be against it, as long as it is done in a manor that neither advocates for the Boxers, or preaches against the 8 nation alliance, see WP:NEU. As for the stangeness of the way the acticle is written in regardes to the Boxers, the reason why it is the way it is appears to be the attempt to give neither side undue weight and to be inclusive of both views. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Go ask Bingdian about your textbooks, similar to Japan lol;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.203.57 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree. The article's bias needs to be fixed to complete objectivity, or the Chinese percpective of the issue should be provided. -
--I feel that this piece is biased, but not from an american point of view (which also is evident in the strange language and organization- whats with the section "short term causes" it just lists a book! what? is the book the cause? if so what did it say? again the title including the phrase "foreign devils" does not make it seem like an antichinese bias. the language is not encyclopedic, and over all this whole page would be better seved by a copy paste job from a 9th grade history book (provided you get permission from the publisher, of course ;) -b —Preceding unsigned comment added by130.219.235.232 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Good to see that Ministry of Information for the Chinese Communist Party monitors this page to give use the party line. At worst this article could use more prespective from the Boxer's POV but pointing out the atrocities committed by them during the uprising hardly counts as propaganda. I'm sure you'd prefer your own one sided version of history where the brave Boxers had to kill the Christian Missionaries before they destroyed China.JDelp (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
See, that's the kind of attitude that keeps people ignorant of the Chinese perspective. Any feeling of disagreement, and it is instantly the 'Communist Party Line', Communist propaganda, lies by dirty communist Chinese. No mention of affiliation or origin, and the accusation of being a communist comes up, who's the one spouting propaganda here?. The inability to separate Chinese people from a government. This is pretty much the modern extension of the kind of superior attitude Westerners had on China.
It is rather disingenuous to speak of “The Chinese Perspective” as if there is only one. In fact the Chinese were rather divided at the time, and continue to be, about the Boxers and the roll of the Imperial court. Several ministers were executed for questioning the boxers, and many provincial lords refused to support them at the time.
Early in the uprising the Boxers were seen as little more than a rabble of bandits, and their failure to press the attack on the legations, such that Chinese imperial troops had to take over for them, resulted in this attitude returning tot eh fore.BryanIrving (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)BryanIrving
Of course your versions are completely factual, CCP of course never sack Li Da Tong for allowing freezing point to point out innaccuracies in Chinese textbooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.203.57 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the article seems a bit imbalanced right now, without enough context. According to "Late Victorian Holocausts" by Mike Davis, the Boxers had a popular slogan of "equal division of grain" during draught and/or famine conditions. At least the popular beelief among Boxers that imperial or foreign persons were responsible for this (rightly or wrongly) was a driving force in the Boxer Rebellion. Also, if you look at the military actions by the Eight Powers in response, that is, well-armed militaries attacking peasants with little more than rocks to throw, the murders by the Boxers take on a slightly different dimension.
I don't think this sentence is neutral: However, controversy still exists about the significance of the movement, and even today the Boxers are praised by the government of the People's Republic of China as patriotic anti-imperialists.
How is it not neutral? This very forum should illustrate that the movement remains controversial. And the Chinese government does consider them patriots. I guess it depends on your definitions of bias.JDelp (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is unclear:
"So great was the sum that much of the money was later earmarked by the Britain and the U.S. for overseas education of Chinese students, forming the basis of Tsinghua University."
Education of Chinese students in America? Of overseas Americans in China? Please clarify.
Obviously, it is referring to American support of overseas Universities...i.e. Chinese students in China, studying using American/U.K. dollars.
[edit]Western bias
There seems to be a strong bias in this article towards the western powers and their christians.
I have to agree. Mention of the western's casualities abound. Why were they there? What about the millions of Chinese that died as a result of the opium trade? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC). I had forgotten that I made the above comment two and a half years ago. The comment stands. The article remains silent about the reasons why the boxers were so very very angry. --Timtak (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Since then dozens, if not at least one hundred edits, have occurred. If you believe that the article violates NPOV, give specific reasons why please. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I did a small edit, adding that many Chinese 'christians' were simply criminals who used the association with the church to flee Chinese law, further harming the image of christians in China.
For a perspective on this subject, I added 2 sourced statements that address the "irritation" and the anti-Roman Catholic nature of the Boxer Crisis. The problem, it seems, was not as much "criminals fleeing Chinese Law" as Chinese using the extra powers of Chinese law granted to these foreign missionaries to their own ends - for good or ill.Brian0324 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There appears to me to be a decidely anti-western bias in at least part of the article. Statements such as ...
"Actually, the so-called "Boxers" were common Chinese citizens protested the invasion of the Eight-Nation Alliance (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Austia-Hungary). During the occupation of China by the Eight-Nation Alliance, they ransacked many houses and committed various atrocities against civilians, including rape and murder.
Troops and participants of the Eight-Nation Alliance were largely responsible for the ransacking and pillaging of many historical artifacts of Chinese nationalist origin, such as those found in the Summer Palace, and instigated the burning of many prominent Chinese buildings." ... ignores the role of the Boxers as tools of a Chinese elite and states the very propoganda that history shows the Boxers spread against the incursion of the Jesuits. This section is overly simplistic and speaks in charged language about events of which there can be no certainty. It betrays an anti-Western bias. Uwharries18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Uwharries
so you would rather ignore that and only preach the propaganda of the westerners subjugating yet another heathen civilization —Preceding unsigned comment added by128.143.43.28 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
He did not post that. You are trying to defend a statment with no sources- Uwharries is asking for the poster to use rational arguments when making these serious accusations. And quiet honestly, that is not alot to ask for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.32.78 (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Chinese patriots vs Viking attackers lol. It's probably a great job foreigners took many pieces of Chinese art because some of above Chinese posters' parents may break it up in 1960's lol. <---THIS GUY'S A TOOL
[edit]German Troops vs. Russian Troops in Boxer Rebellion
Although it was the German Kaiser Wilhelm II's comment to "make the name German remembered in China for a thousand years...", it was not German troops that fulfilled this comment, but rather Russian troops, when they "behaved like Huns at the Amur River by throwing 5,000 men, women and children into the river to drown." Seehttp://www.lisburn.com/books/hart_of_lisburn/hart-of-lisburn4.htm (among others).
Thus edit: "German troops came in for criticism..." to become: "Russian troops came in for criticism..."
(to be done by someone with better confirming sources than just the above website)
Multiple other sources refer to Germain troops. I think your reference errored. Which makes sense... why whould russian troops respond to the German Kaiser's orders?
Catskul 06:15, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
I don't really know much about it, bbut I doubt there was much difference between the different nationals. Also, Russian troops certainly commited many crimes, but of course not responding to the German Emperor, yet on their own... 84.154.5.131 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit]Treaty of Nanjing
Would you say that the Boxer Rebellion happened as a direct result of the Nanjing Treaty, or not? I want to hear both sides of this issue. User:Peaceman
I believe the Nanjing Treaty was a cause but the Boxer Rebellion was not a direct result
Please sign your posts on talk pages. It's easy to do, you just put four tildes Arilang talk 03:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC). You can do this whether or not you are signed in, but a user signin costs you nothing, and gives you a little extra privacy (we can't see your IP address then). Andrewa 8 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)
I would say the Nanjing Treaty was a catalyst, but not the direct root cause. You can attribute The Boxer Rebellion to so many root causes. The most direct and yet most superficial one is the cultural conflict (Do I sounds like that Harvard professor?). The Qing Court's misjudgetment and mis- (or failed)communication with the foreign nations were also to blame.
All the unequal treaties contributed to the Boxers. So did the attitude of the Western imperialists in China who considered themselves superior to the CHinese. And the so called "christians" who came in with the imperialists to make profit from the Chinese people (though there were true christian missionaries, like Hudson Taylor) All of these humiliations under western powers brought about the sentiment that fueled the Boxers Skillmaster (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Skillmaster do you have any sources for your statement so called "christians" who came in with the imperialists to make profit from the Chinese people? Pbhj (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit]Images restored
I have restored the images deleted by an IP with no explanation. It seems just to have been a test, or perhaps a random act of vandalism (the line is a bit hard to draw sometimes). Andrewa 8 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)
[edit]Question about Results
Within the paragraph there mentioned an Empress, however, in the overall chinese history, there was only one Empress and definitely not during the Qing dynasty. It is not the Empress but just the Emperor's mother that was interferring with his business to a point where the Emperor had no power at all.
However, she was still not the Empress, yet. (As documents indicate, she wanted to become the Empress but not quite there yet.) MythSearcher 19:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I've read quite a lot of docs that refer to just the "Empress". You're right it should be the [Tzu_Hsi|Empress Dowager Tzu Hsi] (pinyin Cixi) but as she was the major controlling influence for 60+ years over 2 (and a bit!) Emperor's (by name) you can understand how they'd just call her the Empress. As long as the full title "Empress Dowager Tzu Hsi" is used first I see no problem with using "Empress Tzu Hsi"/"Empress Cixi"Pbhj (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit]More detailed description of the expedition by allied force
I just added the paragraph to give a little description of the marching from Tientsin to Peking. From what I found out, it is amazing that despite the huge number of Imperial troops and Boxers along the Peiho river, the allies almost took a casully walk (or almost) to reach Peking. The uncomfortables were caused mainly by the heat and water shortage, as well as the densely grown corn fields! The takeaway is that the dynasty was completely corrupted.
[edit]Results section
Made a minor change in the following paragraph that originally mentioned Ci-Xi as the mother of the emperor. Ci-Xi was actually the aunt of the Guangxu emperor as he was the son of her younger sister as noted in the Guangxu wikipedia article.
Cobrat 04:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Cobrat
[edit]code
Someone please fix. The template for the allianced countries is covering up the following: The United States was able to play a significant role in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion because of the large number of American ships and troops.
--this problem has been fixed =)
Maybe it's just my computer, but the box containing the introductory image and statistics overlaps on a bit of the text. Raitari (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto to the above. When a firefox browser is sized such that Griffith John's quote is near the top of the boxer rebel image (and a couple of other places), most of it gets covered. Not sure if this is article specific but I haven't seen it elsewhere.Phil153(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit]Plunder
I did read a while ago in a Japanese book on history that the Japanese were the only ones not to participate in plunder and rape. An anonymous contributor just wrote that both Japan and the United States refrained from such violences. This will need referencing, but this is an interesting point to clarify. Regards. PHG 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup, which is why I deleted it. John Smith's 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Still no reference 9 months on, so have taken out the claim japanese and American troops did not engage in looting.
Japanese history books are very biased, they still omit WWII and reject the atrocities committed during the war. It's just out of the eight nations, only Japan still heavily deny any participation in the violence.
[edit]about the picture
I think they are not boxers.They are more likely to be the mercenaries fromWeihai,Shandong,where was a british colony.Ksyrie 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit]Picture
Yes, I agree.
The boxers were not uniformed as such and did not carry rifles. As I recall, 'Yihequan' members only embraced hand to hand tactics.
These troops appear to be the elite units that the Manchu gov't formed with special foreign assistance. The guys in the this picture are perhaps connected to the Peiyang Force who fought the Japanese in Korea.
The people on the main picture look very heroic, but they simply cannot be boxers. I suggest that it be removed.--Niohe 00:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this picture is labeled as "Boxers" in a quite trusworthy Japanese book I have on the Imperial Japanese Navy: Tōgō Shrine and Tōgō Association (東郷神社・東郷会), Togo Heihachiro in images, illustrated Meiji Navy (図説東郷平八郎、目で見る明治の海軍), (Japanese). Unless we have more details on the actual look and equipment of the Boxers, I suggest this image be kept. Regards PHG 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess that the point that I'm trying to make is that they look more like uniformed soldiers than irregulars, just compare that picture (which I have never seen before) with the others on the page. They look completely different. My guess is that this is a picture of soldiers in the new armies constructed in late Qing. Just for the record, what is the Japanese word for Boxer used in the caption for this picture, and when was the book published?--Niohe 10:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
They use the word 義和団. I don't have the book on hand right now, but it is fairly recent (just a few years). Regards PHG 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I still find the picture problematic. If you look at the other pictures (which are widely publicized), you notice that none of the boxers carry firearms nor do they dress in neat uniforms.
To respond to your point earlier, I think it is up to the people who want to keep it to show why it is authentic. Until then, the picture should be deleted.--Niohe 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but at least this image is referenced from a published source. Please reference your point that "none of the boxers carry firearms nor do they dress in neat uniforms". And this image: Image:Boxer Rebellion.jpg doesn't really show weaponless soldiers I think. Regards PHG 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the dress, these people are really soldiers from the Qing armies. Pls also remember that this is a drawing. Reference to my statement? Just scroll down the page and have a look at the two pictures. I see no firearms, nor do I see any uniforms.
I still find the image dubious and I would like to see it deleted.--Niohe 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I observe that the book you are referring to is about the Japanese Navy and not about the Boxers. It is easy to include dubious images off topic in a work like that.--Niohe 13:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit]Belgian embassy?
"The embassies of the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United States, Russia, and Japan were all located on the same city block close to the Forbidden City"
"However, the Spanish, Belgian, and German embassies were not on the same compound."
Where was the Belgan embassy?
[edit]Maxim gun at the compound
I have deleted phrase "old Austrian Maxim gun" in the embassy compound. It had been restored and I have deleted it again for the reasons below: 1. At the time of the rebellion Maxim guns were a world novelty; therefore no "old Maxim gun". 2. Austrians did not use Maxims; their machine gun was Schwarzlose. 3. Finally and most importantly: the gun at the compound, sometimes nicknamed "International Gun" or "Betsy" was indeed and old, muzzle loaded cannon. Nickname came from the fact that the barrel was British, the carriage Italian, the shells - Russian, the crew American. A picture of it can be found here:http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/rcs_photo_project/868.html, with the detailed description. See also: Marina Warner, "The dragon empress : life and times of Tz'u-hsi 1835-1908 : empress dowager of China", London : Cardinal, 1974. In the book there is both a picture and the description of the gun.
[edit]Figure on deaths
Can we get a figure on how many deaths were caused by the boxer's. And how many can be attributed to the europeans? MrDark 10:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit]The Belgian Legation
The Belgian Legation (not Embassy) was located east of Legation Street (entering from what is now Tiananmen Square) at the edge of the foreign quarter. The Legation was given up on 22 June 1900, the second day of the siege, in order to shorten the defence lines. The (repaired / rebuilt?) Belgian Legation still exists but is now a guest house (currently no longer for Westerners - see the Lonely Planet Guide on Beijing, 6th edition), across from St Michael's Church. I have had a quick peek at some of the compound (the ubiquitous Beijing Security permitting after some smooth talking) on 13 and 27 April 2006. A couple of snaps are available upon request at dompiak at yahoo dot com. The main building is a rather attractive little red brick manor.
[edit]The Belgian Legation
The picture is definitely of the Chinese mercenaries helping the British. The Boxers didn't use guns.
Really? I remember that the German Ambassor Klemens von Ketteler was shot.
That's utter rubbish. John Smith's 19:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Don't know about the picture, but Ambassor Klemens von Ketteler was not shot by a Boxer. He was shot by a uniformed Manchu Bannerman named Enhai, a lance corporal in the Peking Field Force. He was later tracked down by the Japanese and executed by the Germans. Before his execution he said that he'd been promised a promotion and seventy taels of silver by his superior (but only received 40). (Seagrave - "Dragon Lady" p335, quoting Fleming p108 and Satow diary, Oct 21,1900) Ka-ru 7:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit]Rebellion
The line in this section "When the Envoy for the German Empire, Klemens Freiherr von Ketteler, was kidnapped and killed on June 20, the foreign powers declared open war against China" is not completely correct on 2 counts.
1) Ketteler was not kidnapped. He was shot while traveling in a sedan chair on the way to the Yamen (Chinese foreign affairs office) by a Manchu soldier. (Seagrave - "Dragon Lady" p335, refering Fleming p108 and Satow diary Oct 21, 1900)
2) While this did provoke hostilities in Peking, war had already been declared many miles away by the Allied forces at the Taku forts. After the Boxers burnt down the French Settlement near Tientsin on June 14, and with the forts taking on supplies and reinforments in light of the array of Allied warships just off the coast, it was decided to issue an ultimatum on June 15 for the forts' surrender at 2am, June 17. Prior to this, technically, the enemy had been the Boxer uprising, not the Chinese government. When the Allies attacked at 12.45am on June 17, a state of war with the Chinese nation began. At this point, no shots had been fired at the legations in Peking. The American forces did not take part in this initial ultimatum as they were ordered not to become involved militarily in the absence of a declaration of war. (Seagrave - "Dragon Lady" p329-331, refering Ibid., p347)
Due to telegram lines to Peking being cut, the court in Peking did not find out about the ultimatum until June 19, where an order was issued to defend the provinces from foreign attack, one day before Ketteler's murder. In fact, Ketteler was traveling to the Yamen as a result of the news of the fighting arriving the day before and the Yamen's suggestion that foreigners evacuate the capital. (Seagrave - "Dragon Lady" p332, refering Tan p74-75) Ka-ru 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit]Australian involvement
No mention of the Australian Naval contingents that were sent into China? I'm assuming they've been lumped in with "British Forces"?
No need to assume as Australia were entirely part of the British Empire and the forces under their control of the British government. There is no reason to suggest they formed their own force under different command chains. A main starting point is that the fleets often combined naval vessels from both countries. Maybe could find a list of the battalions there at the time would show whether specific australian units were used?62.239.159.70 (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit]Reference Needed
"Much of it was later earmarked by both Britain and the U.S. for the education of Chinese students at overseas institutions, subsequently forming the basis of Tsinghua University". Besides the establishment of Tsinghua University by the US using part of the war reparations, is there any reference or sources that back up this claim as a whole? if not this statement should be repharsed.
[edit]Picture deletion explanation
The picture on top of the page is likely not depicting boxers, for the very reason that (1) Boxer usually did not carry guns and (2) they did not wear standardized uniforms. The picture may be referenced, but the author of the book has in all likelihood confused a group of reguar soldiers with the boxers. For more info, seeTalk:Boxer_Rebellion#Picture above. --Niohe 12:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have moved a picture, which is widely recognized as genuine, to the top of the page.--Niohe 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit]Boxer's Religious Beliefs (Myth?)
Can anyone confirm any of the Boxer's belief in the paranormal (for a lack of a better word); in particular spirit possession and magic charms? I'm beginning to believe its nothing but a myth. I havnt once seen a single old photo of Boxer's wearing magical charms and the like. Can someone elaborate or prove me wrong (please).
Bob (Janurary 24, 2007)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.128.230 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Well, photos weren't exactly popular at the time, and probably even less so in provincial China. I have a few books here that cite the superstitious beliefs of the Boxers, including believing bullets wouldn't hit them, use of dance, and the belief in a "spiritual army" of dead who would crush the Westerners. The bookx include "Recent Chinese Studies of the Boxer Movement" by David D. Buck and "The Boxer Rebellion" by Christopher Martin. Both are a bit old, but I haven't seen anything to dispute them. Trappleton 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The Boxer's religious belief is everything that made them what they were. If not for it, CiXi and the court would not have been impressed. It is their belief in the paranormal, which supposedly allows them to combat the westerners, which gained them the support and popularity. You will also find that the regional governor's doubt/disbelief at the superstition made them draw away from the movement (yes, and of course there were foreign pressures and the fact that they would hate a centralized government, etc would make them prefer a regional one, but I don't think they really saw the boxer movement as anything more than a bunch of thugs that the court empowered out of desperation.) --RoSeeker 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit]Deleted text in The Boxers section
User:Enochlau deleted text on April 22, 2007 because he claimed it was unverified. That claim may be valid, and we welcome challenges to undocumented statements, but that is not the appropriate Wikipedia process. Correct is to add the citation-needed tag [citation needed] to the questioned text and give the editor the opportunity to provide a valid reference source. If he does that within a reasonable time, the text remains. Otherwise, it can be removed. I have restored the deleted text and added such a tag. I will check back in one week (April 29, 2007) and take appropriate action at that time. Truthanado 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I see there have been some edits in this area that seem reasonable and supportable. No further action is needed. Truthanado 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit]Whether the Empress Dowager Cixi supported the Boxers.
As i surf wikipedia, i found 3 sources giving different opinions to whether the Empress Dowager suported the Boxers.I am at a puzzle here.Which is correct?Did she support the Boxers openly,was forced to support the Boxers by the court or condemned the Boxers in the open but supported them behind the scene?
She supported the Boxers. See Hsu, or any other reputable history books on late Qing. -RoSeeker 00:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit]Doesn't make sense...
Foreign media described the fighting going on in Peking as well as alleged torture and murder of captured foreigners. Tens of thousands of Chinese Christians were massacred in north China. Many horrible stories that appeared in world newspapers were based on a deliberate fraud.
Were the stories exaggerations or simply lies? This article mentions the murder of 18000 Chinese Catholics, so is this true or not? Is the only the torture alleged, or both torture and murder? I think it is now seen as a fact that foreign missionaries were murdered. I understand that there is a debate about the POV of the article, but perhaps passages could be edited to avoid contradiction. --Scotchorama 09:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit]Massmurder in Blagoveshchensk 1900
After the Russians entered in Manchuria to built the Chinese Eastern Railway, the Russian policy in clearing the southern shores of Amur of Chinese had been ruthless. On the south side of Amur the ones populated forts and villages were deserted. During the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 the Chinese outlaws from the south side of the Amur habitually fired the Russian river ships. Some shots were fired from the small Chinese village on the other side of the river, opposite Blagoveshchensk, where the river is about 800 metre wide and nearly three metre deep in shipping channels. There were an indefinite number of Chinese living peaceably in Blagoveshchensk, estimated at between 3.000 and 12.000. Most reliable figure is more than 10.000 Chinese living by 1900 at town.
The Russian commander of Imperial Army unit based at Blagoveshchensk, fearing that an Chinese uprising was imminent, ordered the Russian soldiers drove those Chinese civilians some four versts up river from the town and forced them into water. Some managed to climb on to rafts, but the majority was drowned.
JN
[edit] ???
"70,000 Imperial Troops"
ok.... Contralya 11:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit]An Empire of 400 million people defeated by 50,000 troops??
How come? When reading about The Boxer Rebellion, it is always astounded my that the empire didn't even have the power to capture the foreign legation. China used to field huge armies, by the hundreds of thousands in a single battle. Yet, during the Boxer Rebellion it had....how many? I mean, where was the chinese millions? Rad vsovereign(talk) 18:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Its a matter of organization, technology, training, all of which were not in favor of the Chinese. Plus, much of the Chinese population was either incapable or unmotivated to leave and fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.162.126 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese government in the 19th century was plagued by severe incompetence. As a result the citizens did not like them very much. Aside from the government lacking the political will and ability to conduct war against the invaders, support from the people was also low. That's the problem with monarchy, it's like a lottery, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.71.144 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit]Name of the conflict
The article should include a mention of how the rebellion came to be called the "Boxer" rebellion, what did boxers have to do with it? Shadoom (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read that they were something along the lines (but not this, will post back when I find the citation ... see below from "a thousand miles of miracles", glover - has pictures too) "society of the lightning fists" and so they were nick-named boxers by the western newspapers. They had several names. This is why the picture with the caption A Boxer rebel. His banner says (in translation) "By Imperial Order - Boxer Supply Commissariat". the Boxer bit was a western invention, they had a well defined Chinese name, can't imagine they would use an English language one on their own banners. Pbhj (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The regular (or literary) name given to the Guild was that of " I Ho Ch'iian," which means literally ** The Righteous United Fists.** It was this latter word which (improperly) gave rise to the notorious term " Boxers.*' The local (or colloquial) name was that of " Ta Tao Huei,** or " The Guild of the Great Sword." The use of tliis latter style (at least in our district) was invariable.
Since Chinese and foreign historians now generally agree that the movement actually intended to support the dynasty, they call it the "Boxer Uprising" rather than "Boxer Rebellion." Should we add a short explanation of the controversy and change the title of the article to "Boxer Uprising"? ch (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The most common name is still "Boxer rebellion". The American Revolution was technically a secession, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit]Lead section In the lead section, the final paragraph begins "The government of Empress Dowager Cixi was not helpful..." What does this mean? Helpful who? — ERcheck (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Duration of the rebellion? Which is it? The introductory paragraph says November 1899. The infobox says 2 November 1899. The Uprising section says "The Boxer activity began in Shandong province in March 1898..."
— ERcheck (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Duration of the rebellion? It's probably quite a hard question. It started as activity, then became a rebellion, then gained government support and became an uprising; following the interventions of the eight-nation alliance it probably then became an underground movement. Pbhj (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Assessment comment edit
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| This has most of the required elements of a high quality article, except discussion of causes. It is of high importance, as an event critical to the development of modern China. --Danaman5 17:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I totally disagree with user Danaman5. It is lack of NPOV, it is biased, inaccurate, should not be a class B article.Arilang1234 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 02:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)