Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Archive 2

Newly-added section with issues

User:Arilang1234 has recently added a large section to the article which appears to have several issues; assigning undue weight to a minority opinion, using non-reliable sources such as other language versions of Wikipedia, and using an inappropriate tone. I've moved it to here for discussion and editing.

Yuan weishi (1931-) retired professor of philosophy at Chung San University,China.

• ProfessorYuan weishi published an essay : Questions on Chinese History Text books and China's modernization. 現代化与中國的历史教科書问題,by criticizing the errors on Chinese school's history text books,he is analyzing the ManchuDynasty's history from a broader perspective.

The research done by professor Yuan has shown that the so called "Boxers"were more like looters and savages then they were patriots. The murder ofFrench catholic priest（Auguste Chapdelaine ）in 1856 was unwarranted and unforgivable. Professor Yuan pointed out that school text books have omitted theBoxer's anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing.Boxermembers pulled out telegraphic poles,burned missionaryschools,destroyed railroads,burned foreign imports,murdered foreigners and Chinese who happened to be connected to any foreigners.The Boxers were complete savages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme.

• Professor pointed out,not only the Boxers were savages,the Manchuofficial Yu Xian 山西巡抚毓贤 was no different.On 27/6/1856,he started with burning down the Tai Yan 太原 foreigner owned hospital,and went to achurch to round up 210 women and children aged between 5 to 30 years old.2 weeks later,he went to foreigners area again,this time he caught 44 foreigners of all ages,plus 17 Chinese converts,and all of them were beheaded onmarket place to be seen by the public.One of the then newspapereven reported:"Foreigners were afraid when news about Peking massacrewere known.When foreigners went to official Yu Xian and asked for protection,but were tricked and round up and annihilated.Yu Xian personally killed a few foreigners using knife."

And Yu Xian 毓贤 was not alone.Dai Lan 辅国公載澜, Dai Xun 載勋, Gang Yi 刚毅 ,who were all under imperial order(from Empress Dowager) to command the Boxers,were as savage and violent as Yu Xian,if not more.

• Boxer Rebellion's carnage.

Professor Yuan's research had also shown that most of the members of the Boxers were ignorant peasants,and a lot of them were plain robbers andthugs.Between 24/6 and 24/7 1900,231 foreigners were murdered by the Boxers,among them were 23 children.In Shan Xi alone,there were 5700 Chinesecatholic were murdered;mostly by the Boxers,some by theimperialarmy.In Liao Nin 奉天（辽宁),more then thousands converts were killed.In He Bei直隶（河北),killings were conducted all over the place,and cover every county.In some county thousands were being murdered,and houses were burned down.Even in Zhe Jiang 浙江 thousands of catholic families were burned and murdered. The worst massacre happened in Peking,and nobody will ever know how many,because there was no record handed down.According to some eyewitness's account:16/6/1900,boxers bandits burned De Ji Drug Store 大栅栏德记药房,fire was spreaded to food shop,Lamp City Street 灯市街,Kwang Yin Buddha Temple 观音寺,Jewellery Market 珠宝市,about 4000 plus shops were burned down,and the fire continued into daylight.The Boxers stopped any effort to put out the fire.The destroyed area was the capital most busy district.Peking city was being looted and burned for days,anyone whom the Boxers were unhappy of,would be called converts,and the whole family were killed.At least hundreds of thousands of ordinary folks were murdered.Peking at its peak time,the population was near 4 millions.Ever since the start of the Boxers Rebellion,the whole city was being looted and burned,many houses were empty,foxes came out in the day time,and people were like walking among cemetery.This was the result of the so-called Boxers Revolution.

I've left a note on the user's talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Boxer Rebellion

http://www.answers.com/topic/boxer-rebellion

Quote:"Boxer" was the English name given to a Chinese secret society that practiced boxing and calisthenic rituals in the belief that it would make its members impervious to bullets.UnquotedArilang1234 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• bmsworldmission.org

http://www.bmsworldmission.org/standard.aspx?id=9436

Quote:Reliable educated native has brought news from Shanxi. Mission houses in Taiyuan burned…. Missionaries fled there… promised safety, immediately massacred, altogether thirty-three Protestants. Probable total, fifty-one foreigners, besides many natives. Xinzhou, six persons escaped mountains horseback… fate unknown Unquoted

Quote:So what exactly did happen to the mission workers?

This Boxer Rebellion, as it was dubbed, was an uprising from 1899 to 1901 against foreign influence in areas such as trade, politics, religion and technology. In Shanxi province this led to the governor, Yuxian, issuing a proclamation, saying: Foreign religions are reckless and oppressive, disrespectful to the gods and oppressive to the people. The righteous people will burn and kill."

Unquoted.

Arilang1234 said:So professor Yuan Weishi is telling the truth.Arilang1234 (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They could be using the same source.

The strange thing about BMS is, you'd think the question, 'What does BMS mean?' would be on their list of FAQs, but it isn't. I couldn't find the answer to that question anywhere on the site. Pursuant to that, and the fact that the internal link BMS leads to a disambiguation page with no mention of BMS world mission, I have removed the internal link in the article. See below.Anarchangel (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• BOXER REBELLION 1900

http://www.haileybury.herts.sch.uk/archives/roll/BOXER%20REBELLION%201900.htm

Quote:By 1900 the problem with an anti-foreign and anti-Christian movement of secret societies known as the "Boxers" came to a head. Boxer bands spread over the north China countryside, burning missionary facilities and killing Chinese Christians UnquotedArilang1234 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Chinese Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion

Contributed by Father Geoffrey Korz

http://www.orthodox.cn/saints/korz_en.htm

Quote: By June 1900, placards calling for the death of foreigners and Christians covered the walls around Beijing. Armed bands combed the streets of the city, setting fire to homes and "with imperial blessing" killing Chinese Christians and foreigners. UnquotedArilang1234 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• More killings

http://www.fas.org/news/china/2000/000620-prc1.htm

Quote:People who had been flayed (skinned) alive, people who had been burned alive, people who had been tortured by the Boxers in the temples. Men, women, children with their eyes gouged out (and) trussed up like chickens. There were also massacres of foreign missionaries who had not managed to reach safety. Unquoted.Arilang1234 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Boxer supported by Empress Dowager

http://www.historikorders.com/chinaboxer.htm Quote: The Boxers also believed that they had a magical power, and that foreign bullets could not harm them. Millions of "spirit soldiers," they said, would soon rise from the dead and join their cause.

Their cause, at first, was to overthrow the imperial Ch'ing government and expel all "foreign devils" from China. The crafty empress, however, saw a way to use the Boxers. Through her ministers, she began to encourage the Boxers. Soon a new slogan: "Support the Ch'ing; destroy the foreigner!" appeared upon the Boxers'banner.Unquoted. Arilang1234 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign devils ? Does that include the Manchu Qing ?Eregli bob (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• St. Modeste Andlauer

Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion

http://www.sjweb.info/Jesuits/saintShow.cfm?SaintID=90

Quote:During the violence known as the Boxer Rebellion approximately 30,000 Catholics were put to death. Unquoted Quote:Then they beheaded them and displayed the heads of the Jesuits on the village gates as a brutal warning of what awaited Christians who did not return to their ancestral religion.UnquotedArilang1234 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• English Professor Henry Hart recently took a research trip to China

http://web.wm.edu/news/archive/index.php?id=4174 Quote:The Boxer uprising ultimately claimed the lives of more than 32,000 Chinese Christians and several hundred foreign missionaries (historian Nat Brandt called it “the greatest single tragedy in the history of Christian evangelicalism”).Unquoted Arilang1234 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Text of USA Secretary of State,John Hay's First Open Door Note

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/fists.html

Quote:From inside the Forbidden City, the empress told the diplomats that her troops would soon crush the "rebellion." Meanwhile, she did nothing as the Boxers entered the capital.Unquoted.

Quote:Surrounded, the foreigners could neither escape nor send for help. For almost two months, they withstood fierce attacks and bombardment. Things began to look hopeless. Seventy-six defenders lay dead, and many more were wounded. Ammunition, food, and medical supplies were almost gone.Unquoted.Arilang1234 (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Kings College history department

http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/tzuhsi.html Quote: During her life in politics, Tzu-Hsi was clever and masterful. Her narrow-mindedness and ultra-conservatism in government policy delayed what China needed to do to keep pace with the rest of the world in the late 1800's. By the time she realized, it was too late. Therefore, many historians believe that Tzu-Hsi's success in the politics of her country helped put an end to any realistic hope of a modernized imperial China. UnquotedArilang1234 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Buschini, J. "The Boxer Rebellion." 2000. Small Planet Communications.

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/fists.html

Quote:Progressing from her intial support before the rebellion to her fleeing of the country towards the end.UnquotedArilang1234 (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Cameron, Maribeth Elliot. The Reform Movement in China. New York: Octagon Books, 1963.

Quote:This book is an extremely useful source when studying the dowager empress because it portrays her in a positive light. This is not very common in regard to most books written about her. This is because most books focus on her negative, court politic playing behavior. I found this book to be just as credible as the others in this bibliography. It was just written from a different perspective. Unquoted —Precedingunsigned comment added byArilang1234 (talk •contribs) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rhodes, Murphy. A History of Asia. Harper-Collins College Publishers, 1996.

Quote:However, the picture it paints is an extremely negative one. It focuses onTzu Hsi as solely a power hungry, miserable, rotten woman who would do anything to get power and then to stay in power. Therefore, this book would be useful for the study of the empress dowager because it gives the researcher yet another perspective. Unquoted. —Precedingunsigned comment added byArilang1234 (talk •contribs) 05:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Warner, Marina. The Dragon Empress: Life and Times of Tz'u-hsi, 1835-1908, Empress Dowager of China. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972.

Warner, a jounalist, describes Tz'h-hsi as trapped by superstition, nepotism, and a corrupt court. Readable account with some good pictures. —Precedingunsigned comment added byArilang1234 (talk •contribs) 05:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Vare, Daniele. The last empress. New York: Doubleday, Dorant & Co., 1936.

Quote:. Daniele Vare's point of view is that even if she did do many things that were negative along with some that were positive this only goes to show she is human.Unquoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk •contribs) 05:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Carving up the Melon

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/BOXER.HTM WSU= Ranked a top-tier research university by the Carnegie Foundation, Washington State University provides world-class, hands-on education to a diverse student ... Quote: In reality, the Boxer rebellion could hardly be classified as either a rebellion or a war against the Europeans. China was largely under the control of regional Governors General; these regional officials ignored the Empress Dowager's instructions and put forth every effort to prevent disorder or any harm coming to foreigners. The Boxer Rebellion, then, was only limited to a few places, butconcentrated itself in BeijingUnquotedArilang1234(talk) 06:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

• Australian troops(about !000)in Peking.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/other/boxer-natal.htm

Quote:China c. 1900. Chinese prisoners, perhaps Boxers or criminals, with written tags attached to declare their crime. They are stood on a pile of stones, one stone removed daily gradually increasing pressure on the throat until strangulation takes place. Death takes several days.

• This was not done by Australians; it was a local punishment.Unquoted —Preceding unsigned comment added byArilang1234 (talk •contribs) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Frances Wood, author and curator in the Chinese section at The British Library

http://www.fathom.com/feature/122228/ Quote:Books by survivors of the Siege of the Legations or missionary massacres rarely acknowledge that most victims of the Boxers, whether Christian converts or simply innocent residents, were Chinese; and the Chinese government was humbled and financially crippled by the terms demanded by the foreign powers.Unquoted

• R.C. Forsyth, The China Martyrs, London, 1904.

http://www.fathom.com/feature/122228/

R.C. Forsyth's 'complete roll of the Christian heroes martyred in China in 1900'.............. offering graphic detail of the murder of missionaries, especially women and children. It was also a matter of some pride that 'the Boxer massacres produced more Protestant martyrs than all the previous decade of the Protestant Church's history in China'.

• F. Brown, From Tientsin to Peking with the Allied Forces, London, 1902.

• Sir Robert Hart, The Peking Legations, Shanghai, 1900

Arilang1234 (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding large chunks of text when others have expressed concerns about it. I don't like to be blunt, but I think the text that you keep adding is poorly written, confusing and of dubious relevance. enochlau(talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

long confusing irrelevant section

I removed it, and made a couple of other changes, but it seems to keep reappearing. I've never really edited before, but there's a big chunk here that is essentially propaganda for one view, that is difficult to read because of poor grammar, and that is frequently not germane to the topic. Can someone who knows a little more about wikipedia/has a little more time do something about this. I came to this article because I have an interest in the topic, and want to learn more about it, but instead I'm getting a list of 120 Catholic martyrs, and the Manchu emperors described as "barbaric." Doesn't sound NPOV to me. —Precedingunsigned comment added by76.103.204.232 (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically a lot of foreigners and missionaries were living in China with a lifestyle that could be considered "colonization" or "incompatible". Eventually a boxer group rebelled. The foreigners then responded with way too much national military power. It looked like an excuse to invade the country. A humiliation peace treaty punished China afterwards. A major controversy is whether the boxers were just regular citizens defending their homes because the Qing government had let them down. They were a group very easy-to-stereotype with all the religious overtone. This was also a time filled with anti-China propaganda everywhere.Benjwong (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

China, Manchu, Qing, or Ch'ing, take your pick

• Hi, everybody, I am back, a bit more experience now.

I like to point out the mistakes of this article, I have noticed that many changes have been made since the last time I edited here. Mistakes are:
(1)Peking was the historical name of the capital, not Beijing. Beijing only became official after 1949.
(2)Line 21 'some Chinese christians were also killed' seems too casual for a B class article. How many is 'a few'? 10? 100? 1000?
(3)Line 23 'Empress Dowager Cixi was not helpful' What do you mean by not helpful? Many historians have concluded that the Dowager was very much behind the Boxer movement, the Manchu imperial army was behind the Boxer movement. B class article of Top-importance ? It is more like a stub to me.
(4) The term 'Chinese government' is used repeatly in this article. In the 1800s, it was called Ch'ing dynasty, or Qing dynasty, or Manchu Ch'ing dynasty. Talking about B class.
(5)Line 34 'the establishmet of the modern Chinese Republic.' Come on fellows, the official name is Republic Of China, ROC, which still exists today, in Taiwan.Arilang1234 (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• (1) "Peking" and "Beijing" are two different ways of writing the same name. (Wade-Giles and pinyin, I think.) Maybe Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language) or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)might say what the Wikipedia policy is on how to write the name in this situation. I don't know. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) lists "Beijing" but not "Peking"; I'm not sure whether that means we should use "Peking".
• (2) In order to say the number, someone would have to find a reference that gives the information. If there is no such reference, it's perfectly correct to give only the information we have: if all we know is that "some" were killed, they we say so.
• (3) I suggest you give one or more references to support the point you're making here.
• (5) "Chinese Republic": Actually, if this is referring to the state that currently governs Taiwan, as the wikilink suggests, then possibly it should say "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "modern state, currently Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "modern Republic of China (currently of Taiwan)" or something. SeeWikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• • @Coppertwig. You are my teacher, according to Chinese custom, I have to respect you. But I then think, open discussion is also a kind of respect too, because we all respect the truth, the facts, especially when we are talking about history. Boxer Rebellion is about 1800s history. In those times, the official, or the correct name is Qing dynasty, or Ch'ing dynasty, or Manchu dynasty. CHINA as a name, I think it was coined by Marco Polo in the 1200s(I am not very sure on this). Anyhow, China as a general term, has a time span of 3000 to 5000 years. And Boxer Rebellion is dealing with a relatively short span of time(2 years at the most) in the relatively short history of Manchu rule(300 years VS 5000 years). In Boxer Bebellion the article, 'China' appears nearly 20 times, Qing dynasty appears less than 10 times. To me, this is wrong, and inaccurate, and careless. The original editor did not do the job properly. In my opinion, to put this article into the correct historical time frame, all those "China" should be changed into Qing, Ch'ing, or Manchu. Otherwise the article do not deserve to be called a B class article.Arilang1234 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User Arilang, I think of your 5 concerns, only #3 has any major relevance to this article. The rest are disputes you can find on any other China related article. Also I think you way overtagged this article.Benjwong (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

@Benjwong, I may have overtagged, when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are jumping the topics more and more. The 72 year old guy, naming of Beijing and China does not appear to have anything to do with this article. Benjwong (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang, if I say something that you think is wrong, please tell me. It's respectful to do that. Maybe I'm really wrong and then I need to know that; or maybe I need to explain to you why I'm right. We can discuss things. However, as Benjwong says, we should only talk about article content. Let's not talk about lies, cheats or throwing egg in peoples' face: I don't think that tells us what the article should say.

I don't know whether the article should say "China" or "Qing" or what. I was just giving suggestions; you and Benjwong and the other editors need to figure out what the article should say. But I think it would be a good idea to look at those guidelines I gave links to. They might help you decide what names to use; or they might not help. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Qing was the dynastic name of China at that time. Saying either should be fine. --209.90.144.229 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace Chinese View?

Would it be ok if I replaced the reference: Liu E, Lao Can Youji (1907) translated by Harold Shadick as Travels of Lao Ts'an, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1952. Reissued: New York; London: Columbia University Press, 1990). 277p. A novel set during the period, with a (mistaken) explanation of the origins of the Boxers.

There are no other Chinese views from the time and this was a well known and influential one. Also, wasn't there once Patrick Hanan, trans. The Sea of Regret: Two Turn-of-the-Century Chinese Romantic Novels. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1995. These also give vivid pictures of life during the troubles. ch (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consensus discussion

TZ'U-HSI (1835-1908). The West called her Empress dowager. During her reign, the Manchu Imperial court was dishonest and did not implement policy to benefit the ordinary folks. This was one of the causes that led to the downfall of the Qing Dynasty(1644–1911). From 1889 to 1898, the Dowager lived in the summer palace in semi-retirement. After losing to Japan in the first Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), the young Emperor Guangxu initiated the 'Hundred Days Reform'. The Dowager then returned to the Imperial Court to call off the emperor's reform, and at the same time put him under house arrest and ordered eunuchs faithful to her to keep watch. In 1899 she supported the Boxer Rebellion, during which thousands of catholic and protestant missionaries were murdered; some were beheaded or skinned alive. Tens of thousands of Chinese Christian converts were murdered too. When the troops of the Eight Nations Alliance marched into Peking, she fled the capital only to accept peace terms by paying the foreign powers huge amount of silver. Before her death, on Nov. 15, 1908, she allegedly ordered her trusted eunuchs to poison the emperor. In a different version, Yuan Shikai was alleged to have executed both the emperor and dowager using a pistol.

Source:Compton's Living Encyclopedia (1995-08). "Chinese Cultural Studies: Concise Political History of China". As posted on Paul Halsall's web site.

I am ready to discuss with other editors on the issue of reaching a consensus on the above text written by me. If there is a consensus, I shall proceed to enter the above text into the Boxer Rebellion article.Arilang1234(talk) 02:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Where would this fit in? I'm not happy with adding material that is 1) questionable 2) not relevant to the article 3)from a source which does not use the research done in the last ten years. ch (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User Arilang1234, your sources are very scattered and all say different things. I checked a really good source that tracks the early Prince Gong - Empress Dowager drama that led to a lot of weakening of the qing gov. All the way to the end of this event and it does not sound like the view you are putting up. Benjwong (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• @user Benjwong, both Prince Gong and Empress Dowager have no (1) reference (2) Footnotes (3) external links. So your argument is not valid. Moreover, en.wikipedia cannot use en.wikipedia articles as source, you should know better than that.
• @user ch, can you present you arguments in more specific ways please, I do not know what you are trying to say.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Arilang, I think you didn't understand what Benjwong said. Benjwong checked a reference, but didn't say the name of the reference. Benjwong was not using Wikipedia articles as a reference. Benjwong was only talking about Prince Gong and Empress Dowager, not using them as references.
  • Benjwong, I think it would be helpful if you would tell us what reference you checked. Note that WP:NPOV says to describe different points of view, not just to choose one reference that you think is best and present that view. However, I have no opinion on whether Arilang's changes here are good or not.
  • Arilang, if other articles need references, then you can put a{{Unreferenced}} tag on those articles if you want. But other articles with no references is not a reason not to have good references for this article. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 15:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Arilang, I didn't mean to be unclear and am glad to expand a bit. By 1) "questionable" I meant that the material didn't fit in with the conclusions of books written in recent years using new archival materials and scholarship, especially the works of Esherick and Cohen, which have changed much of what we think about the Boxers. 2) That the comments on the Empress Dowager 1889-1898 didn't seem to be related to the Boxers; the rumor that she had the Emperor murdered is intriguing but only a rumor, and in any case not part of the Boxer story; there is no basis for the accusations against Yuan Shikai, 3)That Compton's Encyclopedia, which I think is for high school students, does not seem to be a good source because it does not use the scholarship mentioned in 1).ch (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I use the book "Beijing - a Concise history" by Stephen Haw for a long general overview of this event. And a number of other sources for details here and there. Arilang, I think you are trying to promote the view that the boxers just one day decided to attack christians and foreigners. This is not true. There were way too many westerners in Beijing pushing christianity and foreign views very hard for quite some time. The foreigners took advantage of a weakening qing government especially a female emperor. What's even more insane is putting Yuan Weishicomment so high in the article. There are 50 counter-statements that say the boxers action was the last resort etc. Benjwong (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong, your good faith and hard work are impressive, but as I mentioned above, recent scholarship, not limited to the Esherick and Cohen books, has deeply changed what we know. Also, we now have much better studies of what the best work on her calls "the much maligned Empress Dowager." (Sue Fawn Chung, Modern Asian Studies c. 1971 -- I'll look it up). It is clear, for instance, that this article should be called the Boxer Uprising, since it was not a rebellion against the government. The idea that it was a rebellion was a face-saving device which the Allies hit upon in order to prop up the Qing and not have to run China on their own. One of the pieces of "evidence" was the forged "Diary of CHing Shan," published by Edmund Backus. It is quite disttressing to see Peter Fleming cited as a source, since he does not use any Chinese sources and is more than fifty years out of date! In short, there is much that you can do to bring this article up to snuff! ch (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well this is a high priority article which needs hardwork heh. Anyhow the source by Stephen Haw I mentioned is a 2007 book covering the entire beijing history. Where I agree with you is that the event is not against the government. The boxers were basically hired by the qing (directly or indirectly it gets fuzzy). Though some older sources say they volunteer themselves. The general idea is what this article should be. Benjwong (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

@ch (1)I have not read the book by Esherick and Cohen, so I cannot comment on it. As this article is open to any editor, as long as you have a 'reliable source', you are welcome to contribute to it.(2)Boxer Rebellion and Dowager Cixi is interconnected in many ways. Boxer Rebellion signaled the beginning of the Qing downfall, because ordinary folks could at last know that Cixi only used the Boxer for her own political gains. When the western power ordered her to punish the Boxer, she cowed to the West and killed many Boxer rebels. According to one statement made by Dr.Sun Yetsen, many young Chinese began to join the revolutionary force after they saw what Cixi did to the rebels. By the way, originally the West demanded Cixi to be executed too, she got away with it by paying huge amount of silver to the West, which made China weaker, resulting in Xinhai revolution.(3)Again Yuan Shikai played a big part in the downfall of the Qing. When Xinhai revolution started, it was Yuan Shikai who order his Beiyang Army to stop supporting the Manchus; the revolution army had no hope of winning had the Beiyang Army decided to protect the Manchu. Without Yuan Shikai,China's modern history had to be rewritten. Had anyone of you watch the CCTV 走向共和(Towards Republic)? This TV drama explained a lot on the myth of the Manchu Qing downfall. On the rumors of Yuan Shikai killed both Cixi and Guangxu, someone claimed to be the lover of Cixi wrote a book which made the claim, and there was one report on the opening up of the Cixi's coffin and discover of a bullet wound on her remaining corpse. I will find the article(in Chinese) and post it here.(4)Compton's Encyclopedia, is a 'reliable source', there is no good or bad about it. And there is nothing wrong with high school's encyclopedia, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, can you say it is 'good' or 'bad'?Arilang1234 (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is too much info on Cixi that does not belong here.Benjwong (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• @Benjwong, I have to apolozy to you that I have not read 'Beijing - a Concise history by Stephen Haw ', I shall read it when I have the opportunity. What about Professor Yuan Weishi's essay, have you read it? I do not know you education background, I am a oversea Chinese(You can see more on my user page), and I firmly believe on research on internet, especially the skill of using google search. A lot of my 'source' is from googleing, if that is the right word. Just look at the section on 'burning of Hanlin', that was the eyewitness' account, which should be the best evidence, there is no argument. The Chinese Ministry of education can print anything they like on school text books, true or false, lies or propaganda, in the age of WWW, the 'truth' shall come to you in a matter of few seconds. Of course that is if you live outside of China.Arilang1234(talk) 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• @Benjwong, forgot to ask you, have you watch CCTV 走向共和(Towards Republic) yet?Arilang1234 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Benjwong (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• @Benjwong, can you expand a bit more on your statement:'the boxers action was the last resort', what do you really mean? Please explain. About Yuan Weishi's position on the article, that is not a problem, can be moved elsewhere.Arilang1234 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the qing government was useless in protecting its people from foreigners. which is why the boxers were last resort.Benjwong (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong, Qing government was never into 'protecting its people from foreigners', again shows that you have not watch the 'Towards Republic'. Let me give you some quotes:

慈禧:天下,乃我爱新覺羅之天下
慈禧:量中华之物力，结与国之欢心”

慈禧在八国联军侵华时又说“宁与友邦，不与家奴”。 清廷卖国求荣、丧权辱国之心昭然若揭。

Benjwong, we must be able to separate Manchu and 中华, they are two totally different ideas.Arilang1234 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is different. But let me ask you which one is the boxers.... manchu or 中华?Benjwong (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seek consensus to modify error in statement

• I think this statement need to be modified:'Whilst it is true that thousands of Chinese Christians were massacred in north China, many horrible stories that appeared in world newspapers were based on a deliberate fraud'

There are two errors in this statement:(1)'thousands' were massacred? More like 20,000 or 30,000 or even more.(2)'deliberate fraud', what exactly is the 'fraud'? Had it been verified? Or explained? According to my research, and so many eyewitness accounts, they all can be used to verify these 'horrible stories'. Just look at the Missionaries Murdered section, all of them are indisputable eyewitness accountsArilang1234 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Basic Rewrite Please!

As a newcomer to the article, it seems that a stage of maturity has been reached which requires a basic rewrite. The article now is an accumulation of edits, many of which are excellent in themselves, but not a cohesive story, much less one which is coordinated with other articles. Besides, it's UGLY!

The article now is based on Original Research, especially "eye witness accounts" and use of out of date secondary sources, such as Peter Fleming, and even tertiary sources, such as other encyclopedias. As I suggested above, scholarship in China and the West over the last fifteen or twenty years has revolutionized our understandings. It is clear that this was not a "rebellion," for instance. In order to meet the need for Wikipedia:Reliable sources I'm afraid that web based research is simply inadequate at this time and that we will have to use books and articles. Most of them are listed in the article's section of "References" but not used in the article itself. Recent surveys, such as Spence, are better than older ones, such as Hsu's. Many Wikipedia articles make good use of the Cambridge History of China. This and the books by Esherick and Cohen, available in college and larger public libraries, have to be the basis of the new article. The colorful quotes and incidents would then be welcome to bring the story to life.

One good way to deal with disagreements is in a section on "Controversies." The mission of Wikipedia is to describe controversies, not expound them.

I can see from this Discussion Page that there is more than enough talent and energy to do the job,so I hope that this energy and a little time will produce results which we all can be proud of! ch (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with user ch
  
• (1) No need for a basic rewrite. Just some modification will do.
  
• (2) 'original research' or 'original thought':Quote" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments" Unquote. All the eyewitness accounts are taken from books or reliable web sites, and are accepted by wikpedia as reliable source. User ch, please read wiki rules carefully before you make any judgment.
  
• (3)secondary sources,or tertiary sources,are still sources better than no sources; Out of date? We are talking about history here, my friend, not pop songs or fashions that go out of date. Give me a break.
  
• (4) Why should we be proud of events that happened 100 years ago? History is history, fact is fact, whatever been done had been done, and we shall record it as such, what else can we do, unless you have a time machine and you can turn back time and change the history. Do you have one?
  
• (5)'have to be the basis of the new article.' Are you making up new wiki rules? Or put it this way, do you own Wikipedia now?Arilang1234(talk) 07:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

These are fair questions Arilang, and I appreciate your patience. But "history," as you point out, can't be written from a time machine. We Wikipedians have to rely on those scholars and researchers who have worked hard to compare eye-witness accounts, read the documents, go through the works of other scholars, sort out the conflicting points of view, and come up with explanations and tentative conclusions. For us to go directly to the eye-witness accounts is exactly "Original Research."

One place where I don't agree with you is that "these sites are accepted by wikipedia as reliable sources." The ones used in the article are not peer reviewed or otherwise validated.

Our conclusions about "history" change in very different ways from the pop songs and fashions. I'll make a comparison. The human body has not changed much in the last 10,000 years, but you would not go to a doctor whose knowledge was even 100 years old! Our knowledge changes even though the object of the knowledge does not. After Esherick, Cohen, Chinese and Japanese scholars did their work (including extensive interviews with local people to gather their memories) we know much more about what happened than any eye witness or earlier writer.

We also have different points of view. Peter Fleming, for instance, looked upon the Chinese as hopelessly backward, an almost racist view which you and I do not share.

You are clearly an intelligent and committed Wikipedian, so I think if you can get access to the recent books I mention, you will see for yourself better than I can explain here.

Perhaps others would like to comment. ch (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• @user ch, if you are interested in history too, please go to Qing talk page have a look, and give me some of your ideas.Arilang1234(talk) 01:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User ch, I don't understand why you do not accept Fleming's view? The anti-fengshui anti-east is consistent in that period. Just look at burning of summer palace and many events before this. Again, the boxers did not wake up one morning to start a rebellion.Benjwong (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong, looks like you have not watch the CCTV 'Towards Repulic', no wonder you still do not know Cixi was supporting the Boxer. That TV drama explains everything.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• user Benjwong: My objection to Fleming is selective. He's fine when he's talking about the siege because the sources there were in English and there hasn't been recent work which would change our views. But he's not reliable on the general interpretation of the Boxers, where western scholars have built on new research from China and changing understandings. Again, while you are perfectly right that there was a background to the Boxer movement, it was not a "rebellion."ch (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• And thanks, Arilang, for the tip on the Qing article. If you have time, could you edit the section there on the Boxers to reflect the new understandings we made in the Boxer article? ch (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Arilang: I've left a message on your talk page, as I'm not clear why there are several "citation needed" notices now inserted just before the citation. I'd be glad to add more detail in the body of the article, but it doesn't seem needed in the lead paragraph. Maybe you can let me know what we should agree on, but otherwise in a while I'll undo the "citation needed" insertions. ch(talk) 20:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Move material from Righteous Harmony Society

I've merged the material from Righteous Harmony Society, which was a stub. After cutting the duplications, only a few sentences were left. ch(talk) 21:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ch I undid your merge for now. Editors who are interested can really expand that article a great deal. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

citation needed

@user ch(1)Boxers across North China attacked mission compounds.[citation needed], on this one I mean we should add 'burning of churches, schools, hospitals etc. (2)The Allied troops then conducted a campaign of indiscriminate slaughter, rape, and pillage.[citation needed], here I mean we need to separate the 8 nations, some committed more crimes then others, for Russians, they ended up taking more money, killed more people, raped more women. The Americans end up returning a lot of money and building University. So many years have past, we need to be more mature when dealing with history.Arilang1234 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang your comments are still disturbing to me for this article. This boxer rebeliion is so bad, even western sources would accept its own westerners mishaps on china's territory. But here you are telling us, none of this matters. Because a pro-northern-chinese CCTV station has a show about how corrupted the manchu qing government was??? And Cixi is to blame entirely??? The manchu is not entirely to blame. Even well after the rebellion, cities like shanghai were suffering from being picked on by foreigners with segregation and racial problems. And the republican era wasn't run by the manchu. Benjwong (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong, I did not say 'none of this matters.' On the contrary, it matters a lot. If you read Yuan Weishi's article on Modernization and History text books then you understand more. The question is like to put the horse in front of the cart or behind the cart. Old Chinese communist education history text books blamed the western power on everything, is just like putting the horse behind the cart. Yes, western powers were evil, we all know that, but what about Manchus, have anyone really really have a closer examination and analysis on Manchus, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST 300 YEARS? Why didn't they adopt modern western weapons(or at least buy them, if they cannot manufacture them), Why did they stick to bows and arrows when fast loading rifles(Wincester) could be bought in international markets, instead they spend massive amounts of silver bars on garden building. My conclusion is the Manchus deserved every battle field defeats they got in the 2 opium wars.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Arilang, but as I understand, your point is not that citations are needed but that you disagree with what happened! The lead paragraph is meant to be short, and details such as the exact nature of the Boxer damage should be in the body of the article, likewise the breakdown among the Eight nations.

And sadly, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss these fascinating questions. I've learned a lot from the internet China History Forum,[1], which is a better place for exchanging views. Meanwhile, I took the liberty of removing the citation needed tags.ch (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me chinahistoryforum.com, I did not know it exists, I often visit kdnet.net, Baidu bar, or sina forums. All of them in Chinese. Have you been to this one(sometimes have high quality articles:[2]Arilang1234 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang the way this article start now is historically more correct. Whether the manchus "deserve it", that is nothing to do with wiki. The manchus were not war-driven, military type. Very weak in fact. They are cultural people and were being taken advantage of in so many ways. Benjwong (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong,历史学家蒋廷黻曾经写道：“中西关系是特别的。在鸦片战争以前，我们不肯给外国平等待遇；在以后，他们不肯给我们平等待遇。

article on George MackarneyArilang1234 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234 give me some research time. Benjwong (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang where do you believe is the main starting point of this event?Benjwong (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Slaughter, rape, and pillage

I reverted the anonymous cut of the reference to "the slaughter, rape, and pillage," which are in mentioned in Schoppa p. 121 on wide authority. I can supply further references on request. ch (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored?

I reversed recent changes because they seemed to leave out words and move them to the wrong place, but the basic idea seemed good, so if it's ok I will make a separate and undo-able move of the passage in question, the one from Esherick.ch (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:55 Days.jpeg

The image File:55 Days.jpeg is used in this article under a claim offair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have anexplanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

BMS internal link

The internal link BMS leads to a disambiguation page with no mention of BMS world mission; I believe there should be none either, they are barely notable in this article, with the current level of detail. I have removed the internal link in the article. See above. Anarchangel (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources and rewrite?

The section on "Conflicting Interpretations" has reference to only one view, and although it is an important one, there should be better coverage. The material is well covered in Paul Cohen's book, History in Three Keys. The article in general does not use the recent scholarship and has become unfocused, spending more time on the Allied Intervention than on the subject of the article.

I took the liberty of removing the unsourced reference to Westerners, since it is not true that the Chinese had no guns. ch (talk)

The article is totally unneutral. Be careful of those spiritual betrayers: Christians. Culture and belief conflict analysis

The article is totally unneutral. I see christians who claim to be Chinese but actually are the offsprings of semitic Adam and the spiritual slaveries of a bastardy of Joseph ben Pantera, always confusing right and wrong and imputing Chinese. Be careful of those spiritual betrayers: Christians.-Befreechinesee (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I remind all to be aware: The precondition, the fact, is that western Christian missionaries intruded and invaded China, not Chinese intruded and invaded western nations. Chinese Boxer heroes just defended Chinese culture, Chinese bliefs and Chinese religions, and defended China's sovereignty, independence and free in their ancestorland/motherland. -Befreechinesee (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If brutehood to be examined, foreign Christian missionaries and foreign soldiers were more brutal, and much more Chinese Boxeres were slaughtered by Christian missionaries and foreign soldiers who invaded into China.-Befreechinesee (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to cite several articles with facts as well as comments:

• 穿道袍的帝国主义强盗——义和团运动时期洋教士在北京的罪行
• 他们为什么仇视义和团——论“二毛子”的本能反应
• [《所谓“基督圣徒”的面目》 史岩]
• [《义和团运动时期洋教士在北京的罪行》陈清]
• [《传教士与八国联军》周延胜]

........Please search on internet or in libraries for those articles. If anybody do not know Chinese language, please use autotranslator to read. So who is the sinner of conflicts? Christian missionaries or Chinese?-Befreechinesee (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the analysis of conflicts of economic benefit and political sovereignty, we need to face and regard culture and belief conflicts, the invasion of inurbane Christianity, for the analysis of Chinese Boxer Anti-invasion Movement. -Befreechinesee (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No Chinese religion has doctrines or claims to impose its religion on others. No Chinese religion has salesman (missionary) specilized in selling its religions to others and bothering, annoying and plying with others. Traditionally no real Chinese (considering the offsprings of semitic Adam are imposible to be Chinese) making living by selling superstitious religions as missionaries. No Chinese religion abuses others by saying that you are devil or curses others by saying that you'll go to hell if you do not believe it or its gods or its sages. But Christianity does, Christianity and other semitic religions have that kinds of doctrines. So who are the original sinners or malefactors resulting in the conflicts? Obviously and logically the original sinners/malefactors are Christian missionaries.

Suppose, if I establish DOG Religion with doctrines that you are devil and you'll go to hell if you do not believe in the DOG, Then if this bring on conflicts, who is the origin of the conflits? And if I send my missionaries to your land and impose it on your people, and abuse you and curse you if you do not accept the DOG belief, what's your reaction? If my missionaries provide charities in exchange of DOG belief, and the DOG will bring bad visitation to those who do not believe in DOG, wha't your ideas and feeling about the DOG and DOG's dog - missionaries? Would you conflict with those hypocritical missionaries around your home and knocking your door? -Befreechinesee (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Many essential ideas and dogmas of Christianity are uncivilized, barbaric and even evil, anti-humankind. It just bring discrimination, inharmony and conflicts to human beings. Those Christians and rapacious invaders caused many members of Chinese Righteous Harmony Society to be blindfold to think that all foreigners were barbaric and bad, and thus blindfoldly to be hostile to all foreigners at the time. Most of the members of Righteous Harmony Society received little education, although some leaders were well-educated. Actually, if they knew there are westerners or other foreigners who are not that kinds of disgusting Christians and invaders, they would not be that hostile to all foreigners. They have no reason to discriminate or be hostile to the foreigners who are really friendly and kind. -徐名一 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Chinese communist propaganda

User Befreechinesee can stop advocating communist propaganda, Wikipedia is a wrong place to canvass extreme communist POV. Arilang ^talk 12:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a lot of that going on here unfortunately.WackoJackO04:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can find no words showing Befreechinesee advocate communism. From the views of civilization, I think both Communism and Christianity have brought disasters. In the view of culture, many cultures have been destroyed by Christianity and Communism, especially the former, Christianity, destroyed culture of ancient Europe, and in recent 400 years destroyed local cultures in Africa, South and North America, Oceania.... -徐名一 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

@user 徐名一, beating around the bush does not help at all. The real issue here, the real cause of the so called Boxer rebellion, was

1. Overall backwardness of both the Chinese Baixing and the Manchu rulers, when compared to the invading westerners.
2. Our 3000 years old Confucius-supported-Chinese-empire-system was no match to western modern power supported by industrial revolution.
3. The Soft Power of Qing Dynasty, or none of it, was the cause of the downfall of outdated Qing Dynasty.
4. Even today's PRC lack of Soft Power is also very easily seen by others. Arilang ^talk 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You did not point out the real cause and character of Boxer uprising. Now we are talking about Chinese boxers' fight against Christianity and foreign invaders. Even if China was backwardness, it had nothing to do with Christians and foreign invaders. Actually, modern science and tech and industry from west are good, but the superstitious Christianity is backward, unenlightened and even evil. At the time, senior officials such as Zeng guofan, Zhang Zhidong didn't refuse modern science and tech and industry. Also the image of Boxers has been distorted. Actually most of them didn't refuse modern guns, simply they could not obtain guns and cannons. Most of them had to fight with such weapons as broadswords and spears and even their fists. The Chinesee boxers were righteous force, they first wanted to overthrow Manchu rulers, and second, to drive away foreign invaders including Christianity. -徐名一 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's about international trade, then it's mutual benefit. If it's about religion, Chinese people have the right to defend Chinese belief and religion. Do you refuse mutual benefit trade? Even if you refuse mutual benefit trade, I can not force you to trade with me. But western powers used violence, guns and cannons to force China. The situations were much more worse than this. -徐名一 (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Did boxers refuse industrialization? No. Why they demolished such facilities as railways? Firstly, foreign invaders got mining rights through force on Qing dynasty. The railways was managed and utilized by foreigners and was used to transport mining products. It's not common business of mutual benefit and it was just disbennifit for China. Secondly, for the requirement of war against foreign invaders. The railways were used by foreigners to transport soldiers and weapons, and Chinese boxers could not use it. But some persons especially the evil Christians have attempted to distort facts and distort the image of the boxer heros. I admmit some actions of some boxers are unhumanistic, but we also should equally review the unhumanistic actions of foreign invaders and Chritians. And at the same time we should consider two factos: first, it's foreign invaders and Chritians that invaded China, not Chinese boxers invaded foreign countries. Chinese boxers are defensive side, not offensive side. Second, most boxers were poor educated peasants. -徐名一 (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

@ user -徐名一, there is only one thing I like to tell you, is: You have chosen a wrong place to advocate your so called anti-Christian narrow minded POV. Go to your personal blog, that seems to be the right place for you, sincerely yours. Arilang ^talk 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article needs a comprehensive spell-check.

There are numerous distracting spelling errors that should be fixed by a spell-checker. I don't know how to spell-check a Wikipedia article, or I would do it myself. Could someone else please do it? Thanks. DSC46 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back to business

Friends --

Let's not lose sight of the aims of Wikipedia, which are NOT to find "the truth," nor is the purpose of our Talk Pages to carry on debates, however meaningful out in the real world. Wikipedia purposes are both simpler and less noble: to write encyclopedia articles which are useful to our readers. I see a number of intelligent and informed comments which are well intentioned, but should be posted in an appropriate place, such as Chinese History Forum.[3] I very much enjoy and profit from the debates there, but they are, as noted at the head of this page, not appropriate here!

Please check Wikipedia:Five Pillars or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.

With all best wishes ch (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Prescriptivism or compromise?

I appreciate that "more properly" may seem prescriptive, but the alternative would be to retitle the article to "Boxer Uprising." The idea that this was a "rebellion" was a move at the time of the Allied invasion to remove blame from the Qing government. The idea was bolstered by the forged Diaries published by Backhouse and Bland and accepted in early Western monographs even by good historians. In the last generation or so, scholars in China, Japan, and the West have shown conclusively that the Boxers did not aim to overthrow the dynasty. Therefore "more properly called the Boxer Uprising" is a report, not prescriptive.

My own preference would be to retitle the article, as well as to rewrite to reflect the results of a generation of research, but in the meantime, "more properly" seems like the most prudent compromise. ch (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

merge proposal

Whereas, the Eight-Nation Alliance article is poorly referenced from reliable sources,

Whereas, the Eight-Nation Alliance article covers the events found in this article and the opposing force to the Boxers,

I propose that the articles be merged.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. You don't merge the sides with the historical event. Just as you wouldn't merge US military into Iraq war. It is two different things.Benjwong (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No reason to merge, these are quite different topics. The solution is to improve the Eight-Nation Alliance article, not to merge. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case that the Eight-Nation Alliance article is about a side of a conflict, and not the conflict itself, it needs to be restructured/rewritten/overhauled. If it remains as it stands it is a description about the actions of the Eight-Nation Alliance, that being a response to the actions of the Boxers and an attempt to relieve the legations/embassies in the city of Beijing, then it covers the same ground as this article, thus my reasoning for my proposed merger into this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Then, that article is incomplete, not contrived. The answer isn't to eliminate it, but to improve and expand it. If it contains information which rightly should be part of this article, move it, but the suggestion that we don't need any article about the alliance is unhelpful.71.198.34.87 (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, the eight-nation alliance article should just be expanded. JJ Georges (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Page Protection

Notice. I have recently asked for this page to be semi-protected from IP editors due to recent vandalism. If after that time it continues, we can act for longer protection periods. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fiction

Can we please add Pearl Buck's books to "Fictional Interpretations"? Being a missionary and spending most of her life in China, her views about the Boxer Rebellion should be considered.190.136.29.16 (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can back it up with verifiable third party reliable sources, there is no reason why you cannot add it yourself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While Pearl S. Buck has certainly been a strong influence on many westerners' understanding of China some of her work has come into question over the last couple of decades. Her book the Good Earth has long been required Reading in many university courses, but how much of this work is factual and how much of it is an appeal to the readers sympathies is difficult to identify. Ms. Buck herself published these as works of fiction. A drastic comparison could be made to Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. While the novel depicted the plight and tribulations of slaves in the United states (in many cases accurately) the book still stands firmly in the category of fiction. Given the number of excellent new monographs recently published concerning the Boxer Rebellion, and the vast amount of untapped primary source material I fell it would be a mistake to resort to Ms. Buck's work for documentation at this point. Of course any Journal entries or personal correspondence on these matters should be seriously considered, and the reading of her fiction can provide some valuable insight not available in government reports. Once this entry has undergone a drastic rewrite there may be a place for some insights gleaned from her works.

IMHO R Philip Reynolds

Picture: US MArines or Army?

That picture labled US Marines at the Siege of Beijing, I'm very confident that that is actually a picture of US Army. I'm Army ROTC at BYU, and that picture is one of my classrooms with the correct information. I can't remember what it is though. —Precedingunsigned comment added by98.202.114.188 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is, it's the depiction of the actions of one Cpl Titus, the original can be foundhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gods and ghosts

义和拳到底是什么？凤凰网历史专稿

如要理解百年前此等至为乖谬血腥之事，务必从义和拳的“神鬼”观念入手。在当时中国人的眼中，洋人的长相、行 为举止都古怪非常，他们就像马戏团里的小丑或者各种各样的木偶，是些可以用来吓唬小孩的鬼怪。在拳民的眼中，洋人和中国人不是同类，他们得罪了上天，是制 造旱灾的罪魁祸首，唯有扫除洋人，上苍才会降下甘霖。对于中国的教民，尽管拳民们也意识到他们是自己的同类，因而教民背教便可留下性命，如果违抗不遵，便 是异类，杀之无罪。义和拳的“降神附体”仪式更是加强了这种“神鬼”观念，大学士徐桐就说过，“拳民神也，夷人鬼也，以神击鬼，何勿胜之有？”由此，在群 体性的狂暴力量下，拳民们屠戮传教士和教民们非但没有负罪感，反有替天行道、为民除害的正义感。

Above Chinese text will be translated when have more time. See Gweilo, Racism in the People's Republic of China, Jade Emperor, Guan Yu#Worship of Guan Yu, zh:神打

义和拳被美化甚至被神化主要在文革时期，当时甚至提出，“对义和团采取甚么态度、如何评价其在中国历史上的地 位，成了衡量人们是否忠于革命、是否对祖国忠诚的标准”。这种以感性替代理性、政治宣传代替历史真相的思维方式走的是一条“爱国主义”的歪路，是极其荒诞 而有害的。事实上，在中国近现代史上，论愚昧、偏激和狂躁的程度，能与义和拳相提并论的，唯有文革。由此，义和拳被戴上了“反帝”、“人民运动”等光环也 就无甚稀奇了。 义和拳到底是什么？

Arilang ^talk 04:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Section to be moved

I think the "Conflicting depictions of the Boxers" section should be moved to theRighteous Harmony Society article (which needs a major rewrite/expansion, BTW). JJ Georges (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The reader of this article needs to know the controversies, so it seems most useful to leave it here. In the meantime, the Righteous Harmony article does not seem to me to be needed at all. ch (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is needed : what is known as the Righteous Harmony society had a relatively complex history (it was not a "village sect", more an ensemble of village sects and secret societies), which is not developed at all in the current version of the article. I plan to do so when I have more time, as there is some available material to do so. Moreover, it is normal that the belligerents of the article should have their distinct article. JJ Georges (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

War reparations

I put the amount of war reparations paid by China in modern value, based on the data of the Wikipedia's articleTael, because for the readers it is easier to understand than when the amount are put in ancient values. Zimbres (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dagu (Taku) Forts

Somebody posted a picture with a caption stating the the Chinese won the battle of the Taku Forts. That's incorrect. Also, what was "Taku" in 1900 is "Dagu" in modern day transliteration of Chinese.Smallchief 01:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)