Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

regarding questions some had about the origins section

the reason the origins section is vague, and does not detail much about the arrival of the boxers, is because there isnt much to say about their origins. They arose spontaneously in various groups in Shandong in response to various foreign interferences like missionaries and seizing of concessions. If it sounds vague to any of you, we can't do anything about it, thats just like asking why the Tutankhamun article doesn't detail much about Tutankhamun's childhood- because we don't know. Nothing short of a time machine would answer your questions so i think the article is fine the way it is regarding factual information, if you have a problem with grammar, everyone is welcome to fix it.Дунгане (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Non Neutral Standpoint and poorly written

Many of the sentences in the article seem random and disjointed. Additionally, the numbers don't seem to add up as it is claimed by the article that virtually every battle was won by the Boxers and heavy casualties were repeatedly sustained by the Western forces and yet the casualties list seems to show totally in the allies favour (something like 3000 westerners to 38000 chinese casualties) this seems to hhint at further biases in China's favour. I suggest someone needs to read through and edit alot and check some of the facts. 86.152.14.101 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying "numbers don't add up" is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, since you are synthesising and coming to various conclusions on your own. I have listed a whole group of battles in the article, Crushing of boxers in Northern and Central Manchuria,Boxers attacks on Chinese Eastern Railway, Battles on Amur River (1900), Defence of Yingkou, which were not won by chinese forces. Heavy casualties were sustained by westerners during the siege of the legations, where they only numbered a few hundred. Show me where is says a battle was won by the boxers in the article, and virtually nothing will come up. I just checked, the word "won" only appears once, victory only appears three times, and only one refers to a chinese victory. I deleted all the nianhua pictures already.Дунгане (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

western forces during numerous battles numbered a few hundred or a few thousand. Therefore, when the westerners lost a few hundred, that is considered "Heavy" by historians. Alot of chinese casualties were lost during the invasion of manchuria and by the way- virtually nobody kept count of chinese casualties at the Battle of Taku Forts and the Battle of Tientsin, as noted by references on those respective articles, so the casualty figure in the article is probably not even accurate either its more, or less likely, less. And again, i would like to note virtually nowhere does it come up in the article that the word "Victory" or "won" is used to describe the chinese actions, only twice.Дунгане (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Heaviness of casualties is generally calculated based on a percentage rather than absolute numbers, but it's somewhat subjective since you might calculate it based on actual numbers killed or including wounded, and then one might need to decide whether that means severely wounded or minor injuries. The anon does have a point about the brokenness of the writing. I've been working on the Origins section and most of the time that's involved staring at it till my eyes bleed trying to wring some sort of consistency from it. I'm not able to get sources (my local libraries are all little town libraries and the nearest major city library doesn't have anything near the sort of books I need and the university library there doesn't have any east asian texts at all) so I'm kinda stuck for expanding it. Blackmane (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the casualties for the Western military (3,000) given in the article is too high. Looking at the battles I cant come up with more than a few hundred dead -- although I don't know much about the Russian occupation of Manchuria. But was that really part of the Boxer Rebellion? I don't think anybody has a clue about Chinese casualties. Probably in the low thousands for soldiers but with many thousands of civilians killed. I've seen estimates of 30,000 Chinese Christians killed by the Boxers. The Western invaders also did their share of indiscrimate killing of Chinese civilians. I agree that this article is difficult to try to revise. There are whole sections of the article that should be deleted so that a fresh start could be made to come up with something that reflects a middle-ground of what this immensely interesting and controversial event was all about. Smallchief 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There were several thousand boxers in manchuria during the war, and death notices were posted throughout towns by them, urging people to target Russians. The worst fighting in the war occured in manchuria, over 100,000 russian troops invaded compared to only 2,000 for Seymour's expedition. The Honghuzi bandits were the chief source of resistance to Russian invaders. Boxers attacks on Chinese Eastern Railway, Defence of Yingkou, Battles on Amur River (1900), Russian Invasion of Northern and Central Manchuria (1900), Battle of Pai-t'ou-tzuДунгане (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP, the section "peaceful Chinese intention" seemed to be written as a defence of the Chinese role, and although i have removed some of the phraseology, it still does in my opinion. I don't dispute the facts, since I know little of them, however the expression "Only party X were doing Y" and "Actaully they did not do z but the very opposite" - when we have no reason in the text to think they did Z, seem very clumsy POV pushing and lead to distrust of the surrounding text. To say that observing contradictions in the article is WP:SYN seems absurd. All figures should be sourced, if there is a contradiction between the sources, as there often is, we should make it clear that they disagree. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

User:CWH is revising the article pretty well. I do not have any objections to his changes so far.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits to the lede

Friends;

I've made some edits to the lede, mainly removing notes that were redundant (more than one cite for the same information); ancient (to journalistic accounts of the time): not reliable; or not preferable when clear and well written modern scholarship is easily available. My understanding of Wiki policy is that notes and links in the lede should be kept to a minimum in any case. I also moved some material to shorten and make the chronology more logical and lightly edited for consistency.

If anyone is interested, I'd be glad to spell out my reasoning for particular references. Thanks for your patience. ch (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

i have found reliable sources for chinese use of electric mines and works refering to torpedoes

Several American military reports here say that Chinese forces used "electric Mines" on the beihe (peiho) river during the Boxer Rebellion

I have also found some reliable references regarding chinese use of "electric torpedoes", but they all date to the period before the Boxer Rebellion. In 1876, Li had added an electric torpedo works to tientsin arsenal "Electric torpedoes have been laid in some places"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Peaceful Chinese Intention?

Declaring war and surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes as an act of war by every possible measure. How could it possibly be based upon a peaceful intention? --YKatakura (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Prince Ronglu and Prince Qing invited the foriegners to take shelter inside the zongli yamen but the foreigners were paranoid and refused, instead, they shot at all chinese that passed by the legations, which led to them being blockaded. Its natural that a government would be concerned about keeping the trigger happy marines under control before they shot even more people and cause more resentment, which would have led to more support for the Boxers.Дунгане (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is "natural" or not is your opinion. Can you actually provide any verifiable source stating that the Chinese government tried to actively fight against the boxers to stop their belligerency for the purpose of respecting the obvious diplomatic protocol i.e. non-violation of diplomatic missions? Can you prove, against nearly every serious historian, that the Imperial Chinese Army surrounded to protect the diplomatic quarter from the boxers? What some Princes did personally does not automatically warrant any official policy of the government. --YKatakura (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You saying "surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes.... war... based on peaceful intention" is equally your own personal opinion, and per sources already in the article, we already know that forces (the Boxers and Kansu Braves) were already attacking the foreigners in the legations, they received no orders from the government to proceed in such an attack. These two sources say Prince Qing sent his bannermen to protect the foreigners and invited them to the zongli yamen, even sending his own bannermen to attack the boxers and kansu braves.[1][2]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your references not withstanding, YKatakura's statement that "surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes as an act of war" is not a matter of opinion. It was already a longstanding diplomatic and political agreement, well before the events being discussed here. Such agreements were on paper as early as 1709. China, in the person of the Empress Dowager Cixi, had already agreed to the Vienna Convention previous to 1900, most likely on the very day of her ascension. I would suggest a refresher in international political history before further errors are presented in rebuttal to members in this discussion.--ADWNSW (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The diplomatic quarter was "surrounded" by imperial army forces to clear out Boxer insurgents hiding in the legations area, and "diplomatic protocol", had been violated numerous times by foreign powers before any such actions in the legations took place, including the murder of a Chinese civilian unconnected to the Boxers by German Baron von Ketteler, the illegal invasion of chinese territory without notification of the chinese government by foreign forces- the Seymour expedition was clearly without chinese authorization.

Thats not even mentioning the Battle of Dagu Forts (1900), which even the american commander refused to participate in becaues it was an illegal act of war against China without any such declaration.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to my point. Please stay within the immediate topic. Thank you.--ADWNSW (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Western"

I don't think this term should be used, unless it's in a citation. It's lazy and vague. "Western" can cover a vast arrange of countries not involved in the conflict. I would use "Alliance" to refer to troops, "foreign" or state specific nationalities. John Smith's (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the tolstoy one stays since his citation specificlly mentioned westerners.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"he praised the Chinese for their heroic patience. When he learned about the "orgy of murder, raping, and looting" committed by the Western powers in quelling the Boxer rebellion, he raged against the brutality of the Christians"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? I said "I don't think this term should be used, unless it's in a citation". John Smith's (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting attitudes within the Imperial Court section

I cannot see how the citation at the end of the first paragraph supports all of that text. Page 88 of the book does not seem to refer to anything discussed in that paragraph. John Smith's (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Scroll down to page 89 and 90 to see the rest of the text.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You should not have a single citation per paragraph. You need to interspace them a bit more and refer to all the relevant pages. John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Another source which said alliance forces raped but chinese did not

"Lost souls"

An eight-nation allied relief force, including a British contingent, made its way from the coast, with much bickering between the rival commanders. When it lifted the siege on August 14, it proceeded to loot, kill and rape with as much ferocity as the Boxers had shown (with the difference that the Boxers looted and killed, but did not rape).ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A fact is a fact. When someone commits a crime, and its notable, we write it out clearly. We don't try to make up crimes that the victim committed in order to make the article "neutral".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• You should note the following reference, p. 148, which states that Chinese Christians were killed, mutilated, and raped by the Boxers. http://books.google.com/books?id=o80WueMVIeQC&pg=PA148&dq=rape+boxer+rebellion&hl=en&ei=cqC1TZnJCdDUgAeTpL3GCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=rape%20boxer%20rebellion&f=false

To me your insistence that Chinese did not rape women is unprovable. Nobody witnessed the death of most of those killed by the Boxers. We don't know whether or not the Boxers raped women, including Western women. We don't know of any women who survived to allege that the Boxers or Chinese soldiers raped them. That may be because they were all killed. To insist that the Boxers did not rape women is to insist on the unknowable.

There were plenty of atrocities on both sides. The Boxers beheaded children. I don't know of any source that says the Western or Japanese soldiers did. Therefore, should we put a line in the article saying that the Boxers beheaded children, but there were no reports of Western soldiers beheading children?

Your objective is, of course, to portray the Boxers and the Chinese government in the most favorable light possible and to paint the sins of the West in the darkest colors. That's not NPOV. Smallchief (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

According to you then, everything is unprovable

First of all, the majority of reference I used were from books written by proffessors with PHD in the area (i checked the authors of the books for credentials), like Diana Preston who has degress in history, and she the author of one source i quoted for the western committed rapes. this book "abundance of Rain" does not appear to have been written by someone with a PHD or degree, but by a christian evangelical bent on portraying christianity as the one true religion and everything else as lies

Robert R. Mathisen, the author of " Critical issues in American religious history", which i gave as one of the cites that Chinese did not rape, has full academic credentials-

(M.A. Ball State University) is Professor of History and Political Science at Corban College, Oregon

Luella Miner remarked that for all the Boxer atrocities there had been no incident of Chinese rape

And as for westerners killing children-

"An American correspondent was appalled when he saw a Russian soldier crush the skull of a four-year-old Chinese boy for no reason, and Cossacks sometimes killed children just as casually."

"At least one Western observer reported witnessing Cossacks killing Chinese children for no apparent reason"

Now as for unprovable- as per policy, Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources, not the truth. If everyone knows the sky is blue, but all academics wrote the sky is red in their books and articles, then we have to write the sky is red in wikipedia, not our own observation.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Wikipedia:Verifiability

Unprovability extends to real life itself. How do you know we aren't locked up in some kind of Matrix like machine where all reality is a lie like the The Matrix (franchise)? I'm not bringing this up as a red herring or to hijack off topic, but in reality you can't prove anything is real or really happened, thats why lawyers use the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" that my client is innocent, not "my client is definetly innocent".

Therefore, according to sources I presented (with authors that have academic credentials in the form of degrees, the concenses is that western forces committed rapes and killing, and the boxers committed killings but the sources e xplicitly mention the absence of rape.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Wrong. You didn't present "sources." You presented a source. Your academic source quoted a missionary. Luella Miner, who said there was no rape by Boxers. Your academic source didn't opine whether Ms. Miner was accurate in her statement or not. You've based your whole theory on a one-sentence statement from a missionary who was in the Legations during the siege and had no idea what was going on outside the walls of Beijing. Flimsy. Misleading. Smallchief (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

you're the one whose wrong. I also provided a guardian article which explicitly says europeans raped and chinese did not

John gittings, the author of the article, has the proper credentials to be used as a cite-"John Gittings worked for many years as the Guardian's foreign leader-writer and China specialist. He has also written extensively on cold war politics and is a research associate at SOAS Centre for Chinese Studies."ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if there were no citations for saying no Chinese rape occured, the fact is, I looked, and could not find any instances of Chinese rape, but I found tons of reliable sources saying western forces committed rape, the article would therefore contain information about westerners committing rape and not say anything about Chinese and rape since there are no reliable sources which says such events occurred. Then I doubt John would leave it like that, he would most likely have come into the talk page regardless and challenged the neutrality of the article, saying "how come it says westerners raped but chinese didn't, it isn't neutral". Then I would have to show him the Gittings article anyway, regardless of whether it was in the wiki article or not.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Abundance of Rain" is NOT a WP:Reliable source

Its a Book written by an author with zero academic credentials, as a source, despite the fact that the book claims war crimes are the result of a "generational sin pattern", and that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies.

the only thing about him when i googled him that stated his credentials were- Esther C. Stanley is a published author. A published credit of Esther C. Stanley is Abundance of Rain.

Absolutely NO Phd, degrees, MB, or anything in General history at all, let along chinese history.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books"

Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources

Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable

Abundance of Rain is NOT a reliable source. A book that says- "We can see in chinese history how broken covenants and violations of god's laws, judgements, and bitter root expectations have sown curses and reaped violence, revenge, and murder" does NOT qualify as a reliable source.

"it was her own sin and generational judgements and bitter root expectations which barred her from experiencing the blessing and love of god"

Mr. Stanley is a christian, and writes from a christian POV. Now, being a christian is not an impediment to reliability, but having no academic credentials and writing from a religious christian POV is. The aim of his book is to glorify christianity and claim all other religions are false. He has no academic credentials whatsover, let alone credentials in China or history.

I might as well quote "lord of the rings" or "harry potter", and claim wizards really exist here on wikipedia.

Now, suppose I give John Smith some leeway, and allow that Esther C. Stanley, despite the fact that his entire book is about how christianity is the one true religion and all non christians are damned to torture and suffering, and claims atrocities are the result of a "generational sin pattern" that he did use some citations, like Forsychth and "The boxer rising" (not neutral by the way, since they were made by the American Bible Society), that did state how many Chinese christians were murdered. However, at the last sentence regarding rape , torture, and mutilation, he provides no source!-[3]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed at the noticeboard- Abundance of Rain is unreliable

at the noticeboard its been confirm that "abundance of rain" is an unreliable sourceΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Atrocities section

This needs some expanding on what Chinese/Boxers did. There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral. John Smith's (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Real Life isn't neutral. The Allies were the ones who were out of their home countries, and invading another country which never attacked them in all their history. When we write an article on a terrorist attack or a bank robbery here on Wikipedia, we don't pretend that we have to give equal time to the perpetrator and find some dirt on the victims, we report the facts, which is neutral- the perpetrator committed the XXX atrocity and the victim is the victim. We don't invent atrocities by the victim to make it appear neutral.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Dillon stated that Chinese women committed suicide to avoid rape, and said that he witnessed corpses of raped and bayoneted women by alliance troops.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, but we know that the Chinese carried out atrocities. Otherwise, what is the section "Massacre of missionaries and Chinese Christians" about? Was this imagined atrocities? Most of the atrocities section is commentary on the Alliance forces' actions. Are you trying to tell me that there is no commentary on what Chinese did or that no atrocities were committed? John Smith's (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

so you, Mr. Smith, is complaining about the article being "not neutral", yet there is already an entire section (to which I added information about Boxers roasting Christians alive by the way), that already states chinese atrocities, yet you complain chinese atrocities are not represented well enough. Whats your logic here? That there isn't "enough" atrocities?

Mr. Smith, the article's sections are in chronological order. Do you know what that means? That means, the sections are placed in the sequence that they happened, not "whereever I want to put it". the reason why only western atrocities are in the atrocities section is because it itself is under the Aftermath section, AFTER the western forces finally seized beijing and ended the war.

The reason "Massacre of missionaries and Chinese Christians" is NOT in the atrocities section, is because they happened earlier, BEFORE the siege even began, which is when most chinese atrocities occured.

Boxer_Rebellion#Aftermath

The fact is- western atrocities did occuer AFTER the war was finished, which is why its in the Aftermath section.

Therefore, the majority of Chinese atrocities ARE described in the article, in the right section-"Massacre of missionaries and Chinese Christians", placed before sections on the siege.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And I was the one who added the fact that Boxers burned Chinese christians in that section, this was my citation- [4]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I think the organisation of the article is poor. I would have a single section (stand-alone section, not a sub-section) on all atrocities committed by all parties during the rebellion. Separate it from the "aftermath". If not, "atrocities" needs to be changed to "Alliance forces atrocities" or something similar to flag up that it is just talking about Alliance atrocities.

And please don't call me "Mr Smith". Call me John or use my full user name, thanks. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's better. However, I think that we need to discuss whether a joint section on atrocities is desirable. Furthermore, in talking about atrocities against Christians, are we forgetting ordinary Chinese who were killed by other Chinese, either because they were suspected of being foreign agents/were "too close" to foreigners, or simply to settle old scores? You see this is why I'm reluctant to leave the page layout as it is. John Smith's (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tolstoy

Why are you unhappy with my edit to make it clear that he wasn't a witness? The text as you reverted it to says "He accused them of engaging in slaughter when he heard repoorts about the lootings, rapes, and murders, in what he saw as Christian brutality."

If he was a witness, why did he criticise what happened when he heard reports about them? Clearly the meaning is that he heard reports of what happened and criticised them - ergo he was not a witness. John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why did you have to delete massive parts of what he heard and just replace it with "he was a witness"? what he heard reports of, the exact things he accused the troops of doing should stay.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I didn't replace it with "he was a witness". I made it more clear that he wasn't a witness but referred to the fact he was highly critical of what he heard happened. If he was not a witness then his comments should not be given undue weight.

Whilst I am not suggesting everything regarding Tolstoy be removed, if he was not there and he is not bringing anything new regarding facts to the table, what is the point of referring to him? He is in purely because he is a notable historical figure passing comment. I think that is a reason for having him in, but not a good reason for saying much more than the fact he was critical of what happened (with clarification that he was not a witness). If the article already reports rape, murder and looting committed by Alliance troops, there is no need to repeat that when discussing Tolstoy's reaction. John Smith's (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reduce the Tolstoy reference per my last edit on that, unless I hear a good reason to play down the fact he wasn't a witness. John Smith's (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken/wrong citations

I've opened a general thread for this. (193.77.143.154, your observation on duplicated text was invaluable.)

Here's my latest one - A large number of Alliance victories was not due to their own military prowess, rather, it was due to rivalries between the Boxers and the Chinese Imperial army, and conflicting orders given to Chinese Generals by the court. The citation points to page 529 of the Elliot book, but I do not see where the text I have quoted above is supported. John Smith's (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC);

Good work. Keep on trying. A lot of us have tried to improve this article and slowly, slowly it's getting better -- although I would still rate some parts of it as unreliable, polemical, and biased. Smallchief (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

multiple times, several anti China Users loved to bring up the false claim that Chinese used "swords and sprears" against european machine guns and refused to modernize. repetiions about the artillery and other modern weapons Chinese forces acquired were made to disprove the point. Several users falsely claim that Japan modernized while china didn't, on several talk pages, sometimes even trying to use it to shove their anti China POV into articles.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And no, User:CWH is the only person I would say who has made any good effort to improve the article, not "alot of people".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel I must remove the following text.

The ease with which the Alliance was able to pass into Chinese territory uninhibited was not due to their own prowress

I cannot any such reference in the citation. It seems like original research to me. John Smith's (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

source- General Nie let the allies slip pass due to the conflicting orders page 18 of this-

• http://www.jhuapl.edu/ourwork/nsa/papers/China%20ReliefSm.pdf

The Empress Dowager’s government learned of Seymour’s departure and reacted with anger that the foreigners would dare send such a large troop contingent without permission. That same day, Prince Tuan replaced Prince Ching as president of the Tsungli Yamen. All along the line from Tientsin to Peking, Imperial troops were alerted, and the unruly Boxers went in search of vulnerable targets.

On the first day of the relief attempt, the armed trains traveled about twenty-five miles to Yangtsun, where General Nieh’s 4,000-strong detachment of Imperial troops was camped. Unsure how to reconcile conflicting orders coming from Peking, Nieh allowed Seymour’s trains to pass. The expedition went a few more miles and found the tracks heavily damaged. They spent the rest of the day repairing the line and moved out again the next morning. By sunset on 11 June, they had advanced all the way to Langfang, just forty miles from Peking, where they found Boxer militia destroying the rail lines. The Boxers attacked but were easily scattered, and Seymour’s laborers commenced to repair the damage done the next day, 12 June. Simultaneously, the admiral dispatched a reconnaissance party to assess the situation ahead. Ten miles farther on, near Anping, they found strong Boxer resistance and more destruction.

Its very clear that Ronglu's orders led to General Nie letting the foreigners slip right into Chinese territory without being stopped by the imperial army.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very concerned by this. You keep demonstrating a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's original research policy. The above source does not say or support the allegation that "The ease with which the Alliance was able to pass into Chinese territory uninhibited was not due to their own prowress". We might be able to agree that the sources highlight that there was confusion between different Chinese forces. But this does not mean that the only reason the Alliance had an easy time of it was the confusion. You are drawing your own conclusions from the text, which you should not be doing. John Smith's (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note, who is Robert Leonhard, and why should we care what he has to say? John Smith's (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Credentials for mister Leonhard

The website is an edu website. It would not lie on Leonhard's credentials, unlike Chang and Halliday.

Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D.

also from the same link on page 5- "LTC(R) Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D., is on the Principal Professional Staff of The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and a member of the Strategic Assessments Office of the National Security Analysis Department. He retired from a 24-year career in the Army after serving as an infantry officer and war planner and is a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. Dr. Leonhard is the author of The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle (1991), Fighting by Minutes: Time and the Art of War (1994), The Principles of War for the Information Age (1998), and The Evolution of Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism (2005), as well as numerous articles and essays on national security issues."

And there is no "we" in this. you were the one who inserted the work of an uncredentialed author into the article, not IΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Jung Chang has no relevance to this article, and I have no idea why you brought her up. As for Mr Leonhard, none of those credentials refer to China in the early 20th century or China at all. I don't see any serious historical works there either. John Smith's (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Leonhard was an American military officer and has a PHd, in addition to writing numerous books on the military. He specifically wrote about the International alliance participation in the Boxer Rebellion, since American military units were part of the Eight-Nation Alliance expeditional force under Edward Hobart Seymour. He is not writing about Chinese court politics, nor delving into Chinese traditions. His article "The China relief expedition- Joint Colaition Warfare in China Summer 1900", is about the international military alliance force which included american troops. He is a former military officer and worked in the National Security Analysis Department, so he is well qualified to write articles on military actions america took part with.

Under Admiral Seymour, Americans made up part of the Alliance force. I'd say that an American military officer is well qualified to write about military actions in which american troops took part in.

And only an educational instution in America can own a .edu site. Its impossible to fake.- "Starting on October 29, 2001, only post-secondary institutions and organizations that are accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a edu domain"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

as I noted, he already wrote books on warfare, the Boxer rebellion qualifies very much as warfare.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dr. Leonhard is the author of The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle (1991), Fighting by Minutes: Time and the Art of War (1994), The Principles of War for the Information Age (1998), and The Evolution of Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism (2005), as well as numerous articles and essays on national security issues."ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

This is much too long - I would cut this down by at least a paragraph. A large amount of the text should be moved into the main body of the article or deleted if it repeats what is said later in too much detail. Things like the Twain quote and references to Guizi are prime candidates to be moved. John Smith's (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's still too long. I think it's trying to cram information in there that we don't need. Let CWH have a stab at it. John Smith's (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead section now reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant. Arilang ^talk 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about which words and phrases you consider "rant[ing]"? Quigley (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction to the massive errors in Arilang1234's comment, "The lead section now looks like it was copied straight from a standard Chinese high school text book, all of this anti-imperialism ranting.

quite strange that arilang1234 claimed I was speaking pidgin english and I couldn't write proper english when he can't get one sentence without major grammar/spelling errors.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

anyone interested in seeing Arilang1234's history with this article- with what he added, calling manchus "Barbarians", and claiming boxers were "anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing.Boxer members ...The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme", can just take a look at the place where I stored links to his comments- User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/edits.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One might also wonder why he thinks he should have the credentials to criticize my english and insult me, when his english is riddled with errors.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Sun yatsen also said the Boxers were anti western heroes, and praised them as courageous. I didn't know Dr. Sun wrote high school textbooks for the CCP.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Kuomintang was as anti imperialist as the CCP. the KMT seized British concessions in Hankou with military force, accused Britain of "imperialism" in tibet during the Sino-Tibetan War, Bai Chongxi, a prominent KMT member, lashed out at British imperialists in Tibet, in Guangxi, the KMT attacked foreign missionaires and chinese christians, and all foreigners, in vietnam, the KMT backed up the anti French Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang with weapons encouraging them to attack the french, and KMT hakka general Zhang Fakui declared his intention to liberate indo china from "french imperialism". the KMT accused the american CIA of plotting a coup with Sun Liren.

In short, anti imperialims is not the exlcusive domain of the CCP or mainland china,ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Due and undue weight

If we read Marxism, Leninism and anti-imperialism, we know that people who advocate "Anti-imperialism" are mostly Marxists, and Marxist revolutionary theory is not mainstream political ideology in the year 2011. Marxism had been a popular ideology for a while during the 60s and 70s, especially the anti-Vietnam war era, see Black Panther Party . According to Due and undue weight, Marxism is "the views of tiny minorities".

My remark towards user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ: editors should only discuss ways to improve this article on this talkpage, any discussion of Sun Yetsen's attitude towards the Boxers or whether Kuomintang is more "Anti-imperialism" than CCP is completely irrelevant. Any criticism of my grammar please use my talkpage. Arilang ^talk 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny that, the textbooks here in Australia that I was prescribed when I did my high school history course also gives the whole "anti-Imperialism" shebang. I guess that makes Australia a communist dicThis template is placed here to prevent triggering China's "firewall". - User:Benlisquaretatorship as well, right Arilang? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In case you have forgotten, Australia was, and is, a socialist country, and many Aussie politicians, especially the Labor party politicians, are leftists, see Australian Labor Party#Early ideology. Arilang ^talk 04:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In case Arilang1234 has forgotten, the Kuomintang was founded as a socialist party by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, who proudly admitted that he himself was socialist. Chiang Kai-shek also followed socialist ideology, promoting nationalization of industries and corporations.

and equating the Boxers with Marxists is laughable. The entire Boxer society was based on religious beliefs, see Chinese spirit possession, while Karl Marx criticized religion, saying Religion is the opium of the people. Also see Marxist–Leninist atheism, the entire doctrine of Marxist Leninism is the ultimate abolition of all religion

Religions is seen as a negative aspect of human society by Marxist Leninists, who pursued anti religious campaigns, such as the Cultural Revolution in China which involved the destruction of chinese religious practices which the Boxers folloed.- Marxism and religion

During the Cultural Revolution, mao and the communist party attacked religion. the boxers believed in spirits, gods, and were entirely based on religion. Arilang1234 is concocting highly queer and strange original research, WP:OR/Wikipedia:No original research and synthesis WP:SYNTHESIS, by suggesting that this article resembles a Chinese high school textbook and that the Boxers are supported by marxists.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

@Arilang:
>Australia
>socialist country
Jesus Christ, that post in itself pretty much has confirmed that you're someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and yet is still screaming "Everyone chillax, I happen to be an expert in this topic". I'm going to find it quite difficult to take things seriously from now on if you maintain that kind of atmosphere. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

List of biased and WP:Weasel words of this article:

• (1)opposing foreign imperialism and Christianity.
• (2) with grievances ranging from opium traders, political invasion, economic manipulation, to missionary evangelism.
• (3)There existed growing concerns that missionaries and Chinese Christians could use this decline to their advantage, appropriating lands and property of unwilling Chinese peasants to give to the church.
• (4)In June 1900 in Beijing, Boxer fighters threatened foreigners

These are the biased statements I pick from the lead section, and there are many more of this biased statement throughout the entire article, and as a result, this article is biased and unbalanced. Arilang ^talk 04:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mao Zedong praised the Taiping rebels in the Taiping Rebellion as fighting against the "feudal" Qing dynasty court. Yet i don't see Arilang1234 going all over the Taiping article and claiming that its propaganda, in fact, Arilang1234 did the opposite, trying to portray the taiping in a positive light- which is exactly what the communist propaganda department does- praise the Taiping rebels.

Arilang1234 linked us to "unsupported attributions

in other words, Arilang1234 is falsely claiming that what is written in the article doesn't match the source that it cites.

the source used backs up the information in the article- "at the vanguard of this imperialist invasio were the christian missionaries....these missionaries and some of their converts presumed upon the power and might of imperialism to seize peasants' lands and property for their churches and to intervene in lawsuits. no matter how perverse the demands of the missionaries might be, officials could do nothing....

another source used-there are two churches, the american protestatnt and the french catholic in pingyuan..... the christian converts rely on the power of the bishop to file falsified lawsuits

chinese bandits and criminals also converted to Catholic christianity, since they were giving immunity from their crimes by the western foreigners once they became christian, allowing them to continue their criminal activities without fear of prosecution from the Qing authorities. [5]

in short, the statements arilang1234 cited in the article portray chinese christians and foreigners in a much more positive light than what the sources say, if Arilang1234 is suggesting we are using weasel wording, then the only weasel wording thats going on, is the fact that the crimes of Chinese christians and foreigners, per the sources, aren't explained in even more detail, with every aspect of how they robbed chinese peasants of their land and how chinese "christians" were actually bandits who converted to avoid prosecution.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

and thats right, the article is too biased in favor of the foreign missionaries and bandits who converted to christianity, against the boxers- as I noted above, the sources showed how the foreign imperialists/missionaires/ bandits who became christians were exploiting the chinese peasants and seizing their land from them- it isn't explained in more detail in the article. The article actually cuts down too much on what the sources say about the imperialism and exploitation of chinese peasants.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to remind user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, editors are here to discuss on ways to maintain neutrality of the article per WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, if ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ wish to discuss on the subject of who were the real bandits, Boxers vs Chinese christians, he should open another thread. Arilang ^talk 07:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang, it seems to me that you are moving the goal posts. Instead of making the ad hominem against the other editor and shopping for things to say, perhaps you can justify how you believe that there is a problem, without going all dramatic over all this and all that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Benlisquare, for your information, it is every editors job to make sure that Wikipedia rules are to be observed and carried out during editing, whoever ignored Wikipedia rules should do editing on their personal blogs, only then they can do whatever they like do. Arilang ^talk 09:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you're trying to twist things into the way you prefer it to be, by shopping for policy and then acting under the pretense and justification that you are doing everything for policy. Your first sentence gave me the impression of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and your final few lines reeked of shopping. You've already demonstrated that you're the type of person who likes to pretend to be expert (refer to >Australia is a socialist country above), and hence I'm doubtful that your input towards this article is genuinely and solely based on the assumption that you're doing "everything for the sake of Wikipedia policy" as you claim you have been doing, but rather for your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Its very strange that Arilang1234 is suddenly so concerned about wikipedia policy, when he violates wikipedia policy all the time, concocting original research on marxist leninsim and attempting to link them to the boxers, by citing wikipedia articles which don't even back up his assertions, wikipedia articles are not RS and cannot be cited in other articles on wikipedia, and claiming australia is a socialist country based on his own original research when wikipedia says NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and enjoys putting personal insults into articles, claiming people are "salvages" (whatever that is), are "stupid", and that entire ethnic groups are "barbarians"

Its also strange that Arilang1234 likes to screech all the time about alleged "communist propaganda" in the boxer rebellion article (which is all sourced by western publications), but Arilang1234 himself inserted Mao Zedong/CCP's POV into the Taiping Rebellion article, Arilang1234 tried to make the taipings look like heros fighting against the "evil" manchu qing, we can see similar thinking in Mao Zedong who praised Taiping leader Hong Xiuquan for attacking the "feudal" Qing regime, and Hong and the Taiping leaders did exactly the same thing as Mao in the cultural revolution, he attacked confucianism and traditional chinese culture.

It seems that Arilang1234 is here to push an anti Chinese culture/Anti Qing dynasty POV on articles, using contradictory sources, anything that bashes Chinese civilization, the qing dynasty is fine with him in his agenda, such as praising the Taipings who destroyed chinese temples, pagodas, and attacked confucianism, Arilang1234 should start a blog where he can place all his original research rants onto since we don't permit such rants here.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue raised by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ about me using words such as "salvages" and "barbarians" had been fully discussed in 2010 here, admins had made decisions and I have complied with it, and surely it is irrelevant and distracting for ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ to bring it up again at this talkpage. Any further attempts by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ to distract editors again will be reported as WP:Disruptive editing. Arilang ^talk 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dungane, calm down a bit. Although it would be bad faith to accuse Arilang of trolling, but the same principle applies here - don't feed him. Just don't respond to his taunting, and it'll eventually die down. Until he starts to show that he will take the discussion seriously and actually bother to state his reasoning, rather than speaking policy this and that, I don't see how there is any benefit of having this go any further. It doesn't matter how many long lines of text you write, since I doubt that Arilang actually reads any of them; it's a waste of your time and effort since he's probably thinking WP:TLDR, and you're probably making him more active by feeding him. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to remind ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ and Benlisspuare again, all discussion on this talkpage should focus on improving this article while implementing WP rules, particularly the neutrality of the content. Editors who continuously ignoring WP rules on purpose should be topic banned permanently from editing. Arilang ^talk 07:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to remind Arilang1234, that marxism has nothing to do with the boxers nor with improving the article, yet Arilang1234 brought it up again, addition to bring up the straw man attack and claiming australia is "socialist", which has nothing to the with boxer rebellion.

arilang1234 should also be reminded that he was the first VIOLATE Seb az86556's terms in which ad hominen attacks should not be used, arilang1234 brought up china again and marxism in a classic straw man attack.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ronglu deliberately gave conflicting orders to General Nie to make the imperial army fight the boxers and sabotage his performace against western forces

ReadΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dingane, There's no "sabotage" involved here. There is indecision and a change of policy on the part of the Chinese governement. Duan wanted to support the Boxers and attack the foreigners; Rong Lu thought that was a bad idea. The Empress Dowager, like every good politician, wavered between the two and delayed taking a decision as long as possible. A look at the timeline illustrates the situation.

June 10 -- General Nie allows Seymour and his army to travel on the railroad enroute to Peking. He had no orders from the government to stop Seymour. Instead he had orders to suppress the Boxers, which he was doing.

June 16 -- The Dowager Empress has a cabinet meeting. Rong Lu and Duan state their positions. The Dowager comes down on the side of Duan --support the Boxers, destroy the foreigners.

June 17 -- The foreigners attack the Dagu forts. This unprovoked attack strengthens the Duan, anti-foreign faction. Orders go out to Nie, presumably from Rong Lu, who in obedience to the decision of his sovereign, orders Nie to wage war on the foreigners and to support the Boxers.

June 18 -- Nie attacks Seymour in obedience to the orders he received from Rong Lu.

There's no sabotage involved here. Nie followed orders. Until June 16 or 17 those orders were to suppress the Boxers. He did so, as any good and obedient general would. On June 16 or 17 he got an order to attack the foreigners and support the Boxers. He attacked, again following orders.

Rong Lu argued that a war against the foreigners was stupid (and it certainly can be argued that he was right) but when the Dowager decided to fight the foreigners he saluted smartly and said "Yes, maam" and issued order to Nie to fight. Rong Lu probably knew the Dowager better than any other person, as they were childhood friends, and thus I think we can say with some confidence that he was carrying out his sovereign's wishes. That's not sabotage -- that's carrying out what you perceive to be your government's policy. That's what subordinates to a sovereign are supposed to do -- or fall on their sword.

1901: The shadow of an Empire#Ronglu During one of the 55 days of fighting at the legations district, Prince Duan ordered a Manchu commander to shell the legation using a German made cannon. The commander went to see Ronglu requesting an official military order for shelling the legation compound, all Ronglu said was:"The sound of those shells blasting would satisfied people inside Forbidden City". The commander understood the verbal order, he then made sure that all the 600 shells landed on a open field.)

Arilang ^talk 05:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Kansu Braves or Wuwei Troop

The official name of Dong Fuxiang army in Peking was Wuwei Rear Troop, that of Nie Shicheng is Wuwei Front Troop, there is no reason to use names other than the official names. Arilang ^talk 03:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Han Troops or Wuwei Front Troop

The official name of Nie Shicheng Army is Wuwei Front Troop, the best trained and best equipped army of the Dynasty at the time, not just any Han Troop. Likewise, the Eight Banners Troops were Hushenying of Prince Duan and Shenjiying of Ronglu. Arilang ^talk 05:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious picture caption

The picture captioned "Execution of Boxers after the rebellion" actually depicts a kind of pillory device for confining prisoners and is not AFAIK depicting execution. Eregli bob (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical books

Tong Tekong, scholar, historian and university lecturer, Hou Yijie, scholar, historian and writer of university text books, Wang Shuzhen, history books writer, Jin Manluo and Yuan Weishi, and their books cover 10 to 70 years of Manchu Empire history, and yet, none of their books were being cited in all the Boxer Protocol related articles. Put it this way, their books cover many important historical topics, and Yihetuan is just part of them. Discussion is open now. Arilang ^talk 03:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234's edits

I have reverted a lengthy series of POV edits by Arilang1234 here, which had restructured the Boxer Rebellion article around non-English sources with a radical anti-Boxer bias. The article no longer had a shred of neutrality and the chain of seemingly endless POV-pushing edits had to stop.

My reasoning for the revert was:

• The military conflict infobox up top describing the Boxers as all about looting and killing civilians was particularly egregious, a seriously bad, acute lack of neutrality that had to be dealt with immediately. I was thinking, some sixth grade kid could be accepting that harsh, radical anti-Boxer bias as fact right now. Even though he attributes the POV content usually, that isn't enough because of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and, sometimes, even WP:FRINGE. And certainly the front and center Infobox isn't the place for POV, even attributed POV.
• The entire tone of the article changed, and became ultra negative against the Boxers. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT came into play big time, such as citing Chinese language books that characterized the Boxers as "animalistic" and "gangs of bandits". That's bad lack of neutrality. This should be taken seriously.

The citing and RS of Chinese language books had been discussed at [6], at the WP:RSN. User Nick Dupree, if you think Chinese source is not to be used in Wikipedia, you should at least raise it up at WP:RSN. Arilang ^talk 04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• The rash of additions by Arilang recently violate the policy on non-English sources because English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.

Would be nice if a proper English language source could be found, then I wouldn't be bother to do the translation:Qing Dynasty Royal Decree of declaration of war against foreign powers (1900) Arilang ^talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Brave=(Chinese:勇)http://www.hengqian.com/html/2010/3-20/a952870515.shtml 清兵背上的“兵”和“勇”的区别

Wuwei troop had better uniform and firearms.

• Questionable renaming: Yihetuan movement or Yihetuan Boxers is not what we call the Boxers in the preponderance of English sources--they are Boxers or Righteous Harmony Society or Society of Righteous Harmonious Fists, nor would we, in English, call the Gansu Braves "Wuwei Rear Troop."

User Nick Dupree, if you care to have a look at Kansu Braves article, at the info box, it is clearly stated that "Kansu Braves" is only a nickname. The official name of the army was Wuwei Rear Troop, and they should be addressed as Wuwei Rear Troop, there is no other choice. I hope you are not going to advocate the replacement of Japanese Imperial Army with "Japs", even though every GI used that term during WW2? Arilang ^talk 04:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't re-add anything to Boxer Rebellion if it leaves any of the above problems unaddressed. NickDupree (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The origins of the Boxer War: a multinational study 作者：Lanxin Xiang Page 275: The fire put an end to the typically bustling business activities in downtown Beijing. But its psychological impact was much stronger than the financial losses. It left the Beijing residents in a constant state of terror and fear...Most missionary properties, residences of the foreign teachers at the Imperial University and the Eastern and the Southern Cathedrals were reduced to aches. Many Chinese priests and christian converts perished together in the roaring flames.

On June 16, "at 9am, the Boxers set fire to the Deji Pharmacy at the Dasanlan district. The fire moved on to the food stores, the lamp street, the Guanyin temple, the jewel market ... and more then 4,000 shops were burned down. The fire did not stop until daylight. The bandits forbade the fire brigade to fight the fire with water." Thus, the most prosperous and busy section of Beijing was destroyed in one day. Overall, "at its peak, there were more than four million living in Beijing. When the Boxer chaos came, the bandits came and looted the city with no one spared. The market was deserted, and even wild animals can be seen roaming in broad daylight. The formerly busy streets were like graveyards." This was one of the results of the so-called Boxer "revolution." (http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060126_1.htmModernization and History Textbooks. By Yuan Weishi (Zhongshan University professor))

The above statement by professor Yuan Weishi, among other cited content were removed by user Nick Dupreehere claiming that it is disputed material. To me, the content removal was an act of violation of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. My suggestion to user Nick Dupree: you should at least go and read the full text of Yuan Weishi's article, get to know more about Yihetuan boxers first. Arilang ^talk 04:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to User:Arilang1234:

1. I have no objection to the use of Chinese sources in Wikipedia if it complies with the policy, for example if no English sources exist (like the Qing Imperial decrees, the translations of which are valuable). I do object to using very politicized, overtly bashing statements when more balanced views on the Boxers are readily available in English. My problem is editorializing. Editors shouldn't editorialize on Wikipedia.
2. The names of things should be the name that exists in the preponderance of English sources, and the name that English-speaking societies know. We know what Japanese Imperial Army is, but may not recognize the Wuwei Rear Troop. The nickname "Gansu Braves" is used in the preponderance of English histories of China.

Yong(Chinese:勇), literary "Braves", were the official name of the member of the militia, which were recruited from the local civilian. Yong(Chinese:勇) was not regarded as the official Imperial Army, the funding and the logistic was provided by civilian society, not by the Imperial Court. Tuanlian

Yong(Chinese:勇 English:Braves) was the official name of the local militia, exactly what Muslim Kansu Braves were. After they were official recruited into the Imperial Army as the Wuwei Rear Troop, they then enjoyed the full benefit of the Imperial Army system, including pay and rations. Once they became the Imperial Army, their name was Bing (Chinese:兵 English:soldiers), they were no longer Yong(Chinese:勇 English:Braves), so the Muslim Kansu Braves is no longer accurate. Wikipedia should not use any name knowing it is an error. Arilang ^talk 02:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

1. That particular excerpt from Yuan Weishi's article, which contains POV statements describing the Boxers as "bandits" who spared "no one" should be excluded from the article as WP:UNDUE WEIGHT unless there is a sympathetic POV statement that weighs in the other direction, thus providing balance. Only mentioning negative statements on the Boxers is the definition of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Wikipedia has rules against lopsided articles.

If you care to look at:List of 1900-1930 publications on Boxer Rebellion, you will find out that between 1900 and 1930, there were many Chinese published books calling Yihetuan boxers as bandits. So, contrary to what you believe in, Yihetuan boxers were being regarded as bandits, this is the historical fact, is on many books title.

*1900 West Hunt Record (Chinese:《庚子西狩丛谈》) Author: Wu Yong (Chinese:吴永)

• Memoir of life in Hangzhou (Chinese:《杭居杂忆》) Author:Wang Shosoon (Chinese:王守恂)
• 1900 National Upheaval (Chinese:《庚子国变记》) Author: Li Xiseng(1864-1905) (Chinese:李希圣)
• 1900 Peking Records of Awards and Compensation (Chinese: 庚子京师褒恤录) Author:Wang Sosoon (Chinese: 王守恂)
• Boxer Bandits Records (Chinese:拳匪纪略) Author:Chiao Qiseng (Chinese:侨析生) 出版社：上洋书局, 清光绪29年(1903) Date of publication:1903
• Tianjin Boxer Bandits Upheaval Records (Chinese:《天津拳匪变乱记事》) Author:Liu Mengyang, (Chinese:刘孟扬) 1901 publication 刘孟扬，
• East of Peking Military actions against Bandits telegram records (Chinese:《直东剿匪电存》) 1907 publication
• Boxer Bandits Eye witness records (Chinese:《拳匪闻见录》) 1911 publication
• Boxer Bandits led to Disaster (Chinese:《拳匪之祸首》) Author: Luoxhi (Chinese:若虚) publication date unknown

Arilang ^talk 01:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reading, and please carefully consider the points I've raised above. NickDupree (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

When did the Boxer Rebellion begin?

The infobox gives the dates of the Boxer Rebellion as 2 November 1899 to 7 September 1901. I know that the Boxer Protocol was signed on the second date, but nothing in the article explains the significance of November 2, 1899. Can we find a reliable source that tells us what happened on that date? If not, we should correct the infobox accordingly. Actually I doubt we can pinpoint a precise beginning to the uprising. We will probably have to settle for something like "late 1899," which was the beginning of the Boxers' expansionist phase in north China. Any comments? Madalibi (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything that happened on Nov 2, 1899. The first significant event for foreigners i'm aware of was the killing of an English missionary by Boxers in Shandong on Dec 31, 1899. The movement seems to have begun in 1898. Smallchief (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I just did some more research on the events surrounding the Boxers. On November 1, 1897 (not 1899), two German missionaries were killed by an armed band in which members of the Big Sword Society (a precursor of the Boxers) participated. The "Juye Incident," as this episode is known, gave the Germans a pretext to seize the city of Jiaozhou in southern Shandong on November 14, but the conflict didn't escalate any further.

On October 18, 1899, the Battle of Senluo Temple in Pingyuan county was the first clash between Boxers and Qing troops. The Boxers were routed. Their leader Zhu Hongdeng fled south, but he was not pursued by government troops. On November 4th (not 2nd), Zhu attacked more Christian villages. This battle was the first time Boxer groups referred to themselves as "Yihetuan" 義和團 ("Militia United in Righteousness"), as opposed to "Yihequan" 義和拳 ("Boxers United in Righteousness"), a term that had appeared in 1898 (Joseph Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising [1987], p. 253). "Yihetuan" was the name the Boxers kept until the end of their uprising. As Joseph Esherick claims (same book, p. 270), "the battle in Pingyuan and the flurry of anti-Christian incidents that engulfed northwestern Shandong in the fall of 1899 marked the final maturation of the Boxer movement." Paul Cohen, another noted historian, claims that "notice of the Boxers began to appear in foreign newspapers in early October" (History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth [1997], p. 44).

Because reliable sources portray the Battle of Senluo Temple (October 18, 1899) as such a turning point (first clash with Qing troops, first use of the name Yihetuan, trigger of a "prairie fire," says Esherick) and because notice of the Boxers started to appear in foreign newspapers in October 1899, I propose we put "October 1899" as a beginning of the Boxer Rebellion in the infobox. If we find this date too precise, we could always revert back to "Fall 1899."

Madalibi (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Smallchief (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Since "2 November 1899" seems to be unverifiable, I just wrote "Fall 1899" in the infobox instead. If we can develop a stronger consensus, we should adopt "October 1899." Madalibi (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Our infobox now says "Fall 1899," but the lead paragraph says that the uprising started in 1898. It's true that 1898 was the first time the name "Yihequan" was used, but I don't think we can say the uprising started this early. Should we correct the lead accordingly? Or maybe we need to make a distinction between the uprising and the Boxer movement that started earlier? Madalibi (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Change the structure?

Still for the sake of clarity, I think we should restructure the beginning of the article to make the emergence of the Boxers more intelligible. I propose starting with a section on "The Boxers and their precursors," where we would explain the name "Boxers," the various groups that historians see as precursors of the uprising, and some pre-1899 events that historians discuss when they study the Boxers. We could then move on to a section called "The Boxers' expansionist phase (Fall 1899–Spring 1900)" where we would explain how the movement spread widely to north China and eventually became an outright rebellion. The term "expansionist phase" comes from Joseph Esherick's Origins of the Boxer Uprising (1987) and Paul Cohen's History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Events, Experience, and Myth, which are the two most reliable sources concerning the rise of the Boxers in English scholarship. Then we would have "Siege of the Legations." I think this structure would be much clearer than we have now. One problem remains: where would we discuss the deep causes of the rebellion like missionaries and foreign encroachment? Comments? Other suggestions? Madalibi (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is very sensible. There has been a lot of energy put into adding individual pieces of information, some of which is fresh and useful, but not so much into the overall structure of the article. Several points follow: first, in relation to the question in a section above, since there was not one coordinated movement, there was no one date when the movement began, only, as you well point out, when the "expansionist phase" began. I will start a new section for my second point ch (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust and Boxer Deniers - welcome to Wiki

The great joke of Wiki of course, is that it accomplishes nothing other than exposing the deniers of history to folks the 'John Smiths' of the world, and war criminals of Japan and Germany.

Good luck Wiki - maybe you could actually step in with educated editors and do the work instead of inflaming readers on your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.121.38 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Chester Biggs as an unreliable source for the events leading to the uprising

I just deleted these two sentences: "The Chinese Imperial army discharged one third of its soldiers, whereupon most of them joined the Boxers. They also kept their weapons, so that the Boxers were able to use firearms instead of just swords and spears." I've never heard of this, and it makes no sense at all. Why would the Qing disband armies when it was so sorely lacking troops after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95? The reference was to page 18 of The United States marines in North China, 1894-1942, by Chester Biggs, who is a professional army man, not a historian. He doesn't cite any source to back up his claim. He also makes six mistakes in the next two sentences of that page, so he's obviously an unreliable source:

"The feelings against the Catholic Church were intensified in 1899 when the Catholics purchased a temple in the village of Li Lien Yuan and replaced it with a church. The Boxers' first outbreak in the Chihli Province took place on the night of December 31, 1899, against this mission."

Mistakes:

1. The temple was not purchased, it was given to the Catholics.
2. This grant of temple and land took place in 1869, not 1899.
3. The village was called Liyuantun, not "Li Lien Yuan."
4. Liyuantun belonged to Shandong province, not Zhili.
5. The Boxer attack against the Liyuantun Catholics took place in October 1898, not December 1899.
6. December 31, 1899 was when the first foreign missionary was killed by a group calling itself "Boxers." Got nothing to do with Liyuantun.

Anyway, my point is that this is not a reliable source. This is why I deleted the two sentences. Madalibi (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, which sources are you basing your views on? John Smith's (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. All the information on the Liyuantun incident can be found in CHapter 6 (titled "Guan County, 1898: The Emergence of the 'Boxers United in Righteousness'") of Joseph Esherick's book The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (1987), a meticulous study of the rise of the Boxers based on primary sources. The grant of a temple to Christian villagers in 1869 is disccused on p. 144. The name of the village appears throughout the whole chapter. Its location in Shandong (in a strange "exclave" belonging to Shandong within Zhili province) appears on a map on page 139. The Boxer attack on the villagers on October 26, 1899, is described on p. 163. And the killing of the British missionary S.M. Brooks took place in a place called Feicheng on December 21, 1899 (Esherick, pp. 269-70). The same information can be corroborated in Paul Cohen, History in Three Keys, pp. 22-25 (for the conflict surrounding Liyuantun) and 35 and 44 (for the killing of Brooks). I guess I overdid it. I only meant the above to be a long edit summary that explained my removal of two sentences on the disbanding of Qing armies, because Biggs cites no source for it and commits so many other mistakes that we can't consider him reliable in support of an unplausible claim when he's not even getting simple facts straight! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your criticism is well founded here, but the disbanding of swaths of the Imperial Chinese army is fact. Though devastating tactically, the Qing were forced to lay off much of the army due to financial crisis, earthquakes, floods and crop failures that starved multitudes, and extreme strain on their (silver standard) currency after suffering huge outflows of silver to the Western powers and toward war reparations for victorious Japan following the First Sino-Japanese war. The Qing no longer had enough food or silver taels to support the size of their military. A lot of the laid-off army joined the Boxers. Things went from bad to worse. NickDupree (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I will have no trouble accepting this disbanding as fact – or as "verifiable," since this is Wikipedia – if it can be confirmed by a reliable source. (Someone else than Biggs, of course!) To reinstate the deleted statement, the source will need to say that troops were disbanded in Shandong, that they were allowed to keep their weapons, and that they joined the Boxers. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-removing Images of Heavenly Pig and Zeng Guoquan

On June 25 I removed the Silver Ingots image in the Causes section, since Zeng Guoquan died in 1890 and the image could not refer to the Boxers.

Earlier, I removed the Heavenly Pig image, which was also mislabeled. In this case, the error was in the source cited, but I explained that the correct information is found in Paul Cohen's earlier book, China and Christianity, which dates the pamphlet from which the woodcut was taken to the 1860s. This image is certainly striking and relevant to the history of anti-Christian feeling in China, but not to the Boxers.

Both of these images were restored, perhaps inadvertently but without either explanation or notice. So I have re-removed them. ch (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi CH. I agree with your reasoning on the Zeng Guoquan illustration, but I would like to clarify something about this "Heavenly Pig." This image was drawn from an anti-Christian pamplet called Jinzun shengyu bixie quantu 謹遵聖諭避邪全圖, which Paul Cohen translates as Heresy exposed in respectful obedience to the Sacred Edict: A Complete Picture Gallery. Cohen used two images from this work in a section on "antiforeign and anti-Christian lore" of his book on the Boxers (see pp. 164 and 166 of History in Three Keys). According to his bibliography, he found this pamphlet in The Cause of the Riots in the Yangtse Valley: a "Complete Picture Gallery", a book that was published by a missionary press in Hankow in 1891. The East Asian Library of Princeton University has photoreproduced this very book: http://eastasianlib.princeton.edu/pdfs/medical/5552_431q_vol01.pdf (WARNINGS: large PDF; graphic illustrations of violence; copyrighted material). The two prints Cohen used appear on pp. 78 and 82 of the pdf; the heavenly pig is on p. 63. Unfortunately, Cohen doesn't discuss the date of the original Chinese work that was reproduced in this 1891 book. So two questions:

• Is Jinzun shengyu bixie quantu the same work that Cohen dated to the 1860s in his book on China and Christianity(which I unfortunately don't own)?
• Couldn't we do like Cohen and use a picture from that work to illustrate the important anti-Christian theme? The caption would have to make provenance clear, of course.

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your points are well taken -- the Pig woodcut, which is wonderful indeed, seems to have been reproduced after the 1860s and certainly illustrates an ongoing general theme. The Princeton reference is great. But I'm still a little reluctant to equate the Boxers with earlier anti-Christian incidents or with anti-Christian arguments going back to the ... to the Ming? Would it be ok if I go back to Cohen's earlier book and check out the connections (this will take a few days as I'm out of town)? I will also check his Cambridge History chapter.

Sorry to say that probably what we need is to expand and update Anti-Christian Movement (China). ch (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, strictly speaking, these pigs and goats do not belong in Boxer Rebellion and would find themselves more at home at Anti-Christian Movement (China), a wiki I didn't even know existed. Thank you for pointing this out, and do take your time to consult Cohen's book and his chapter in the CHC. I am curious to see where such images first emerged. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The "bias" in the article: various interpretations of the Boxers

Dear all. I've read the talk page in more detail and see that Arilang1234 has argued that there is a strong pro-Boxer bias in this wiki. I've had serious clashes with him before (e.g., this) and I disagree with some of his methods (like inserting a strong counter-bias in articles he disagrees with), but sometimes he has a point. He's right, for example, that many people called the Boxers "bandits" throughout the Republican period, and that many Chinese intellectuals today are depicting the Boxers as violent, anti-modernist peasants. This new wave of anti-Boxer writings contrasts with the benevolent view of the Boxers that the CCP has been promoting for decades.
Wikipedia should not care about whether the Boxers were or were not bandits, but it should present the controversy as it is discussed in reliable sources, starting with English-language scholarship. Paul Cohen devotes 80 pages of his book to 20th-century interpretations of the Boxers, and many recent writings by established scholars like Lydia Liu, James Hevia, and Ruth Rogaski also make comments on modern views of the Boxers. Since these changing interpretations are so central in the historiography of the Boxers, I propose that we discuss this issue in the lead. Explaining in a few lines how the Boxers have been interpreted since 1901 would show that the Boxers are an inherently controversial topic. What do you all think? All the best, Madalibi (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to my point that the Boxers are inherently controversial... Joseph Esherick said that "there is no major incident in China's modern history on which the range of professional interpretation is so great" (The Origins of the Boxer Uprising, p. xiv, as cited in note 155). Madalibi (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

For me the most biased section of the article is titled "Lack of Coordination and Sabotage." There are a lot of inaccuracies in this section, the events are not presented in chronological order, and Ronglu is made the villain for the Chinese armies failure to destroy the foreigners in the Legation Quarter and the allied armies advancing toward Peking. True, Ronglu seems to have believed that the Boxer movement was a chimera that would soon fade away -- and he was mostly right. The Boxers disappeared faster than they rose. And he perhaps believed that killing the foreigners in the Legation Quarter was a very bad idea. So, he attempted to find a solution to a crisis over which neither he nor the Dowager nor anyone else had control. The Chinese government was split about how to deal with the Boxers and the foreigners. I'm no expert on Chinese politics but Ronglu seems to have held the reasonable and rational view that a war with the foreigners was not in China's interest. That makes him more of a realist and a practical politician than a villain in my opinion. To portray him as a saboteur of China is I think biased and unfair. The super-patriots defending a war always attempt to portray the opponents of the war as disloyal traitors -- and a bit of that is going on in this section. This point of view is even more prominent in other articles related to the Boxer Rebellion.

My suggestion would be that this section be eliminated. The infighting in the Chinese government is described elsewhere -- and can be augmented if necessary.Smallchief (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lede should mention the nature of the controversies, since they are built into the subject, and then expanded upon in the Controversies and changing Views section. (in fact, as I recall, I at one point added such a paragraph to the lede). But in the various sections, disagreements can also be mentioned as long as they are proportional and represent major views, not outliers. I also agree that the useful material in the "Lack of Coordination and Sabotage" section would be better when worked smoothly into the narrative in other sections. ch (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Smallchief that this wiki shouldn't sound partisan no matter what it says happened. Even if Ronglu did everything this section said he did, this section shouldn't sound like it's either attacking him or defending him. Working some of these details back into the narrative would avoid having an entire section devoted to criticizing Ronglu. Note that many other sections already contain barbs on Ronglu. Unfortunately I'm leaving in a few hours, so I don't have time to do any more editing. Madalibi (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I just checked note 117 in the section on "Lack of coordination and sabotage." It refers to Paul Cohen, History in Three Keys, p. 54. The relevant passage is about the siege of the Legations and goes like this: "Although there was some Boxer participation, primary responsibility on the Chinese side was borne by regular government forces, under the command of Dong Fuxiang and Ronglu. The latter, although wary of antagonizing the Empress Dowager, was not sympathetic to the Boxers, clearly understood the folly of China's having taken on all the powers at once, and made sure the siege was never pressed home." No more details are given.

The section on "Lack of coordination and sabotage" starts like this: "The Manchu General Ronglu deliberately sabotaged the performance of the Imperial army. When Dong Fuxiang's Muslim troops were eager to and could have destroyed the foreigners in the legations, Ronglu stopped them from doing so." The reference to Paul Cohen comes after the second sentence.

A few problems:

• One fact noted by Cohen (Ronglu didn't press the siege) is used here to support the claim that Ronglu sabotaged the siege, something Cohen doesn't say explicitly.
• Cohen's judgment that Ronglu "understood the folly of China's having taken on all the powers at once" is omitted.
• Cohen would probably agree that Dong Fuxiang's forces were eager to attack the Legations, but nowhere does he say that the Muslim troops "could have destroyed the foreigners in the Legations."

We should probably go through the other footnotes to see if the cited books support the statements made, and then integrate the statements that prove verifiable into the narrative of other sections. Madalibi (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And one last point: Cohen's point on the siege actually comes from Esherick, who says: "But the siege was largely carried on by regular troops under Rong-lu and Dong Fu-xiang, and the former ensured that it was never pressed home. The Chinese remained in a basically defensive posture throughout; and though they fired about 4,000 shells at rather close range, they caused a total of only fourteen casualties. The gunners seemed to be deliberately aiming high. The siege was significantly loosened in late July, and fruit and vegetables were sent through the lines as the court briefly sought a negotiated solution to the crisis. This ended in early August when the hard-line former governor of Shandong, Li Bing-heng, returned to the capital to attempt a final rallying of the Boxers against the advancing international expedition. Li's return provoked a stepped-up bombardment of the legations." (The Origins of the Boxer Uprising [1987], pp. 306-307). Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

An additional point. The soldiers defending the Legation Quarter suffered nearly 50 percent casualties with a total of 200 dead and wounded from a force of a little over 400. (Exact figures should be put in the article?) These casualties came from frequent Chinese attacks, snipers, mines, and artillery. Certainly the Chinese army had the capability of overrunning the Legation Quarter with coordinated simultaneous attacks by thousands of soldiers. They didn't use that capability effectively -- whatever the reasons. But, outnumbered as they were, the defenders of the Legation Quarter were hard pressed and near the point of collapse three weeks into the siege when the Chinese declared a temporary truce. It was a tough fight against heavy odds for the people in the Legation Quarter and that fact should be recognized. Some modern day revisionist historians call the siege a farce or a picnic. The casualty figures contradict that opinion. Smallchief (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove Neutrality Templates?

The two templates were added on July 1 with no explanation. Therefore I propose to remove them unless somebody objects and explains what the neutrality problem is (there are other problems, but they are being addressed). ch (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the templates were added by USER:Arilang1234, who argued that the wiki sounded too pro-Boxer. I think "systemic bias" is unjustified, so we could probably delete it, but there are still sections that lack neutrality. Maybe we could leave the "lack of neutrality" template there until we improve the lead and various sections (pro- and anti-Boxers, pro- and anti-Manchu, or pro- and anti-foreigners) that are not worded neutrally enough or that contain synthesis or original research? Until we solve those problems, the template would alert the readers that this wiki does not yet reflect the best scholarship there is on this topic. Well, just an idea. Really have to go, now! Madalibi (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, as the page WP:NPOV dispute says, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

In light of this, the two tags are not very helpful. Deleting them would not do much harm as long as we keep working on improving this wiki by respecting Wikipedia's content policies. Madalibi (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

How's this -- I'll remove the tag on the lede but for the moment leave the other. I strongly agree that removing the tag does not remove the problems! ch (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think "systematic bias" is too strong. John Smith's (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A good amount of time has passed, and I think there is a consensus to remove the tag. ch (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We need a clearer narrative

I think this wiki lacks a clear narrative line. Imagine you're a general reader who's trying to understand when the Boxer Uprising started and how it unfolded. You start reading and what you get is a bunch of disorderly dates in "Origins of the Boxers" followed by a messy section on "Causes" that is not organized in anything like a chronological order. Then instead of an account of the rebellion, you get a detailed analysis of the Chinese forces, their armament, and their tactics, including an analysis of where they failed, when we haven't even heard of what they did. After another section on Boxer massacres of Christians (which does not give specific dates and is not presented in chronological order), you finally get to the Siege of the Legations and its lifting by foreign forces. But by then I think most readers will have given up. The sections on armament, troops, and tactics might be relevant, but they don't belong in the middle of the story. They should be presented at the end, arguably in a much summarized form because this wiki is already far too long. New wikis could be open on each of these side topics. What do you all think? Any comments or suggestions? Madalibi (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all the flaws you've mentioned. I couldn't agree more that a major overhaul of the article is necessary; it's especially needed to provide more context and causes so that the origins and motives behind the Boxer Rebellion are understandable for the unfamiliar reader. Can we use this section of the Talk page to facilitate collaborative editing to reach these goals? --NickDupree (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's try that, but this is going to take extensive work! Let me start by just shifting the order of the sections without removing any content. Then if I have time, I'll organize each section in chronological order (still without changing content except for correcting obvious mistakes), and then we'll see what we can do. Madalibi (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the long thematic analysis of Chinese forces to the end of the wiki where it belongs. I'm planning to pick out the narrative bits from that section and insert them back into the story above, but first I'll reorganize each section chronologically and add dates where they are missing. This will make the story clearer to readers, but will also help us to identify the holes in the story. Then we can plug the missing events back in. For now, I'm not removing any content. Madalibi (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Ok, I've pretty much finished reorganizing the wiki in chronological order. Now at least we see how the events unfolded. But the article is far too long. At 150,000 bytes, we're far beyond the 100K size at which a split is strongly recommended (see WP:SIZERULE). Apart from turning the sections on armies into their own wikis (Chinese armies during the Boxer rebellion or something like that), we can start by working on the following problems:

• Level of detail: there is far too much detail; as a minor event in the Boxers movement, the burning of Hanlin Yuan doesn't deserve 16 lines of text. And details like the clothes of Italian soldiers were dripping in blood and Clemens von Ketteler had his heart eaten by a Muslim soldier don't seem to belong on a general wiki like this one.
• Block quotes: long citations are usually not recommended. We should use our own words to make the same points. I suggest we not delete them for now, because some are there to provide balanced POV, but we should work on merging them into text.
• Redundancies: the taking of the French Legation is announced no less than four times, and even with that the reader has no clear idea of what happened (the same event is described much more clearly in Siege_of_the_International_Legations#Chinese_attacks_and_resolve).

Let me start by removing redundancies... Madalibi (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a fair amount of work. Not nearly finished, but I think the whole thing flows much better already. Suggestions would be welcome on how to improve the text further. Will start editing again in two or three days. See you guys soon! Madalibi (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did basic cut and paste to put the sections in a clearer chronological order. There's still lots to do to add important topics, but this will give you guys a better target. ch (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes on Sources and Proposed Edits in Notes

Friends;

I applaud the move to consolidate and revise using Esherick and Cohen, though Preston is a reasonable popular work, Elliot is sharp, Xiang has done a lot of research, and some of the older studies have good material on some points.

Here are specific cuts in footnote references which I will make if there are no reasons offered not to. In some cases, this will mean that important statements will be left without notes and could be tagged as needing a reference. But it is already the case that these statements are not substantiated, so cutting a weak reference does not change the situation, only make it clear.

I will make the edits in small batches so that you all can see what I am doing and discuss individual edits.

Here is my reasoning:

The article Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources advises that references are meant to tell the reader the source for statements that are not common knowledge, to give preference to secondary English language scholarship, and to give a feeling for the range of opinion. Many of the sources I suggest cutting are valuable and interesting but are not the sources to be preferred. Other items I suggest cutting are to reports of the time, some of which was based on eyewitness accounts, but not verified or tested. They are Original Research. This type of source should be used for color or illustration, not for basic facts, much less for controversial statements.

A number of cuts are to newspaper, yearbook, or encyclopedias. I respect the work which went into gathering these, but they are not tested or verifiable scholarship. Others seem to have been added randomly, but now can be pruned.

Several cuts are to web self-published works which are admirable but not preferred sources, especially if they are not documented. Some should simply be moved to the Further Reading section.

Many of these can be safely cut because they are the second or third note at the end of a sentence.

Numbers refer to footnotes as of July 8, 2011.

• 18 countrydstudies and 19 Thecorner.ord (a dead link) are 1) notes to websites and 2) unremarkable.

• 20, 23, 30, 31 Thompson, William Scott Ament is used more frequently and heavily than needed and out of proportion to its scholarly weight. But # 42 is a nice quote and might be kept

• 21 MacMurray, John van Antwerp, Wardron, Arthur (ed.), How the peace was lost: the 1935 memorandum, (should be "Waldron" instead of "Wardron") but MacMurray is not a reliable source on this point in any case.

• Original research 22, 25 Morrison, Dr. George E. “The Siege of the Peking Legations” The Living Age, Nov 17, 24 and Dec 1, 8, and 15, 1900, p.475.

• Weale, B. L Indiscreet Letters from Peking. should not be used as a primary source and is not reliable.

REASONS: Lanxi Xiang The Origins of the Boxer War in his notes on sources says that many of the so-called diaries “are bogus ones, which were written after the events, including Indiscreet Letters From Peking – I consider them secondary, rather than primary sources." (p. 363) Robert Bickers, Britain in China: Community, Culture, and Colonialism, 1900-1949 (Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press, 1999), says of it that it is “No straightforward memoir” but a “stylized account” and an attack on “supine British diplomatic leadership” (p.34)

• 33 Historik Orders, a tertiary and unreferenced source

• 37 "D’Arc’s Marionettes a random (but charming) source, undocumented, tertiary

• 42 The International year book: Original research, as more than a century old, not verified, other scholarly sources available.

• 49 Grant Hayter-Menzies, (2008). Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling. A charming and carefully done work, but not a preferred source on this topic.

• 54 Russojapanesewarweb: A random website, however interesting is not a good source when others sources are available.

• 61 Original research: Chamberlin, letter to his wife (11 December 1900), in Ordered to China: Letters of Wilbur J. Chamberlin: Thia might be OK for color, but not as a reference for a controversial statement. Here we need a scholarly source.

• 67 John Gittings (Saturday 5 August 2000). "Lost souls". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-11-30. The article is an excellent piece of journalism, but it is not documented, and is not a reasonable source for this section.

• 70 Joanna Waley-Cohen (2000). The Sextants of Beijing This is a textbook -- a fine one – but not good for this assertion.

• 82 Original researchEdwards not a verified source

• 83 Haw, Beijing an excellent book, but tertiary on this point

• 84 Original research: Hastings, Selbie, Gray (1916). Encyclopædia of religion and ethics,

• 85 Original research: Travels Of A Consular Officer In North-West China

• 90 Original researchThe Outlook was written from halfway around the world.

• 92 A passing reference, without indication of the author or sources, only the name of the journal.

• 93, 111, 140 Caitlin. This is a debate background pamphlet, not a scholarly source but should be moved to Outside Links.

• 96, 98, 99 all are Original research

• 104, 105 link to photographs, not verified sources

• 112, 133 Leonhard's pamphlet is serious and nicely done but is a self-published web posting when scholarly sources are available. Should be moved to Outside Links.

• 117 & 118 Hewlett (1900) cut, to leave Preston

• 124, 127 , 141, 142, 46 Appleton’s etc. all contemporary journalist accounts & Original research cut

• 151 dead link

• 152 undocumented website, cut also the text

• 153 the memories of an ancestor, not an authority. Should be moved to Outside Links.

ch (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice piece of work there. I agree that Putnam Weale is an unreliable source. His book, while it includes some vivid eye witness descriptions, is self-serving. Another source which I believe should be used cautiously is Jane Elliott, "Some did it for their civilization, some did it for their country, a revised view of the Boxer War." She presents an interesting picture of the accomplishments of Chinese arms during the Boxer uprising -- but her "revised view" is one that is sometimes not in accord with most mainstream sources. For example, I recall that she presents the Dowager's flight from Peking (Beijing) as something of a triumph -- when I believe it can hardly be interpreted as anything other than a ignominious admission of defeat. (It's been a while since I read her book, so I may not have that quite right.)

I agree with you that contemporary journalistic accounts, such as Appleton's, often contain inaccuracies that have been corrected by modern scholarship. I believe, however, that eye-witness accounts, such as the very influential reporting of George Morrison, have merit as sources for color and detail. For example, statistics regarding the number and nationality of foreign soldiers in the Legation Quarter and the casualties of the defenders of the Legation Quarter derive mostly from Morrison's newspaper articles.

My own personal prejudice is to make Wikipedia's article as readable and interesting as possible while maintaining a high standard of scholarly accuracy. Smallchief (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the further comments, which I will use when I make my suggested edits. I agree that accounts from the time often include colorful quotes and details, which can well be included or retained. My concern was that some of the writers who claim to be eye-witness were not actually on the spot or did not report even handedly. So I think that both you and I would treat Putnam Weale with greater suspicion than Morrison, while giving preference to favorably reviewed scholarship of recent times. ch (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi CH. Wow! This is very helpful! And I can only imagine the amount of work this took. I'm glad to see that someone is as strict as I am in differentiating between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and in rejecting original research. These are basic Wiki policies, but they are rarely applied strictly enough! I haven't gone through every single footnote mentioned here, but I agree with your suggestions on the first ten of them. The rest of the list is done in the same spirit, so I agree with them on principle. Of course we will take a close at each of them, but the proposed edits are strict and their implementation prudent, so you have my support! Madalibi (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again: I will soon go ahead, using both your and Smallchief's admonitions, and continuing to honor the hard work represented in the article as it stands. I hope and assume that you will continue with your thoughtful and well balanced edits, which are exemplary. ch (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous assessment of my edits. I plan to continue as soon as I return from a family trip in about mid-August. We are leaving in two days. If you make all the edits you suggest, I will certainly see a much improved "Boxer Rebellion" (or even better: "Boxer Uprising"!) when I come back. Keep up the excellent work. Madalibi (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note for those interested in examining CH's proposed edits. From note 61 onwards, you have to add 1 to get the right number. There's a discrepancy because I removed a footnote somewhere between notes 54 and 61. Good editing to all! Madalibi (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done some of the edits proposed by CH. I started at the end with notes 151 to 153 so as not to disturb the note numbers in the rest of the list. In addition to removing block quotes from primary sources, I added information on the same events, with proper reference to primary sources, of course. The section on "Massacre of missionaries and Chinese Christians" should now look better. See you all in a month! Madalibi (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Smallchief talk I went through and changed romanizations to make them consistently pinyin. The only exception was Kansu Braves, which I left in the Postal Romanization because "Kansu Braves" seems to be the more widely recognized version. Does anybody have thoughts?

We should probably go through the other articles linked to the Boxer article and make them consistent. ch (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian Invasion of Manchuria and Other Planned Revisions

I have drafted a revision of this section using the articles which are linked and turning them into a consecutive narrative. I understand that user DÜNGÁNÈ is now revising those articles, so I will hold off until they are changed.

In writing this draft, it became clear that there should be a section added which briefly covers the diplomacy before, during, and after, including such tidbits as the Open Door Notes (which ... golly, should itself be revised), Russo-Japanese War, etc. etc. Or perhaps this diplomatic aftermath could well go under a slimmed down section of Long Term Consequences.

I also have drafts of Bibliography and Further Reading which separates into sections: General Accounts and Analysis; Eyewitness and personal accounts; Allied Intervention, Boxer War, and Aftermath. The sections on Fiction, Stage, Screen, and Radio can also be made more clear.

I also plan to reorganize the sections on Controversies and Changing Views to make clearer what the controversies are. ch (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi CH. Most articles only get truly improved when one or several serious editors work systematically to improve them. Your contributions so far speak for themselves, so I suggest you simply go ahead with your proposed revisions. They can only make this wiki better. Good day! Madalibi (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rework Chinese Forces Section?

If some energetic soul is looking for worthy tasks, I nominate the "Chinese Forces" section for consolidation and condensation. I'm not sure whether it needs to have so many subsections either. What do we think? ch (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't help on this as it's unclear which Chinese forces were doing what during the siege. The tendency of foreign authors is to attribute all the fighting to the "Kansu braves" which I think is probably inaccurate -- but I can't prove that. Chinese sources could probably clear up some of the murkiness about which Chinese armies were engaged and the role each of them played. One thing is clear, however, is that the Boxers didn't play much of a role in the actual fighting with the foreign armies. Some of them were probably inducted into the Chinese army, but the majority of them probably just went home and the movement dissolved. Smallchief (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution would be to integrate relevant details from this section into the narrative and move the rest of the analysis of Chinese forces into a new wiki (Chinese forces during the Boxer war or something). Doing so would preserve the abundant information we have in the current section, but without letting it clog the story of the Boxer uprising, which I think should form the core of this wiki. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Siege of the Legations section

I've hopefully improved the first two paragraphs of this section. As there is a wiki article on the Siege of the International Legations do we really need the last four paras of the section? If you think we do need them, then I will undertake to rewrite these four paras, putting the fighting in the siege in more of a chronological perspective. Arguing against shortening this section is the fact that the Siege was the centerpiece event of the Boxer Rebellion. What do you think? Smallchief (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Siege section needs enough detail to give a full narrative -- "centerpiece" puts it right. The reader should be able to read through the whole article and get a story which gives proportionate coverage. So I would welcome an even richer picture here, with details from Morrison et al (as you mentioned earlier). I also think you're right that those last four paras look like scraps, but maybe some points in them could be salvaged? It's always a problem to balance the "main article" (here, "Boxer Uprising") with all the side articles. This is one of the strengths of Wikipedia, but it's a royal pain to get them coordinated (your point about romanization is just one example). ch (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Smallchief's project. The last four paragraphs are a brittle aggregate of what used to be isolated sentences. Some details might be relevant, but right now they sound like floating anecdotes rather than illustrations within a larger story. It would be nice if someone could write a narrative that will explain how the siege unfolded in both time and space. Information on the indecision of Chinese commanders could be integrated here instead of appearing in a separate section, because conflicting orders and Ronglu's indecision were linked to specific events during the siege. The key role of the truce declared by the court should also be explained better. Good editing! Madalibi (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've completed the revised siege of the legations section, but frankly it seems a bit long to me. What do others think? What's the solution? Are the last two paragraphs in the section necessary? They are interesting, but perhaps not vital in an overview article. Certainly they would fit in the Siege of the International Legations article and I could move them there if others agree. Smallchief (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do so. This kind of detail clearly belongs in the more specialized article. And thank you for revising the account of the siege! We finally get a sense of the grinding progression of Chinese troops in space and the unfolding of the siege in time. I agree that the section sounds a bit long, though. I also notice that more than half of the references are to primary sources. Would removing a few of them help to shorten the piece? Madalibi (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Translation of "Yihequan" and "Yihetuan": modify throughout?

I propose to modify our translation of Yihequan 義和拳 and Yihetuan 義和團 throughout this wiki so as to reflect common usage in Western scholarship. Our wiki is currently using the old translation of "Yihe" as "Righteous and Harmonious" or "Righteous Harmony," but as both Chinese and some Westerners understood it at the time, this term referred to people who united together for the sake of righteousness. [Sources: Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (1987), p. 154; and Cohen, History in Three Keys (1997), p. 303, note 5.] Esherick and Cohen translate "Yihequan" 義和拳 as "Boxers United in Righteousness" and Yihetuan 義和團 as "Militia United in Righteousness"; all the Western historians that I know of have since adopted this translation. If we modify our wiki accordingly, we should remember to explain the older rendering somewhere. Any comments? Madalibi (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the translation "Fists of Righteous Harmony" but I don't speak Chinese so my like is based more on literary than linguistic aspects. So, my opinion on this doesnt count for much.Smallchief (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smallchief. What I'm saying is that recent English-language scholarship on the Boxers overwhelmingly uses "Boxers [or "Militia"] United in Righteousness." Esherick explained in 1987 why this translation was more accurate than the older ones with "Righteous Harmony" in them, and then the entire field followed him. So this is not just a vote for the accuracy of a translation. It's also a vote about what constitute reliable sources. In other words, should we follow the recent works of Western historians that unanimously use "... United in Righteousness," or should we stick with the older sources that usually say "... of Righteous Harmony"? Since we follow recent historians' understanding of the uprising itself, I argue we should also follow their translation of "Yihequan" and "Yihetuan." This being said, "fists" is another acceptable rendering for quan 拳, so "Fists United in Righteousness" would be another legitimate translation for Yihequan 義和拳! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mad. As I said my opinion on the Chinese language isn't well informed. All in all, I'll submerge my literary bent and express myself in favor of the more accurate and modern translation. Certainly Esherick is by any definition a reliable source. Smallchief (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SmallChief that "Boxers United in Righteousness" doesn't sound as good (much less Cohen's "Militia") but that we should follow the best recent work. So changing it here and in the related articles, if possible, is a good idea.

BTW, Welcome back from vacation! I hope you'll like the changes during your absence. They are not meant to be definitive, only to clear things away and get things in clear enough order that we can proceed.

Then we can take on the task of also following Esherick. Cohen et al and change "Boxer Rebellion" to "Boxer Uprising." ch (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I do like all the changes you made. The page now sounds clearer and more informative than ever, and a much better platform for our next leaps forward than the fragile ground we had been threading on. Thank you and the other editors for all the good work! Madalibi (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Change Article Name to "Boxer Uprising"?

As I pointed out (December 2010, now archived):

the article would better be re-named "Boxer Uprising." Most western professional historians use this term (eg Esherick & Cohen) or "Boxer Movement" and in Chinese it is also called a "movement," not a rebellion. This would bring it in line with most Chinese historians, who refer to it as qiyi (uprising). The Chinese Wikipedia article is titled 义和团运动 (Ihetuan Yondong; Righteous Harmony Movement).

The Boxers aimed much more at the foreigners and Chinese Christians, not the dynasty. When the Allied expedition took Beijing, the diplomats did not want to take the responsibility of bringing down the dynasty, and adopted the face-saving interpretation that the court was not responsible, other than a few individuals. Therefore, they decreed, the Boxers were "rebels." A main piece of supporting evidence was the "Ching Shan Diary," later shown to be a forgery.

Recent historians writing in English but who read and do research in Chinese most often use "uprising": e.g. Spence, The Search for Modern China, Esherick, Origins of the Boxer Uprising, Cohen History in Three Keys, or Bickers & Tiedemann,ed. The Boxers, China,and the World. Others use "Boxer Movement" or "Boxer War." There are examples of "Boxer Rebellion," but they tend to be from those trained in an earlier generation or not to be historians.

This would be some trouble, but now that we're revamping, it would make a lot of sense to do it now. ch (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to propose the same change, actually! Historians from Communist China used to portray the Boxers as anti-imperialistic and anti-feudal (i.e., anti-Qing), and to argue that the Boxers were rooted in the anti-dynastic White Lotus tradition. But from the very beginning they carried banners that said "Support the Qing, destroy the foreigners," and their religious rituals were very different from those of the White Lotus all along. This is why historians now call the Boxer episode an uprising instead of a rebellion. I don't think changing the name of this wiki would be much trouble. We would just need to move the page to "Boxer Uprising" and create a redirect at "Boxer Rebellion." Let's just get a consensus before we make the move. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No dissenting voice for more than a month, but we probably need more than two editors to reach a solid consensus. What do other editors have to say? Madalibi (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I admit to having affection for the old, but inaccurate, name of "Boxer Rebellion." But accuracy is key so, I would (somewhat reluctantly) support a name change to "Boxer Uprising." Smallchief (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)10:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make the move manually, but the server refused my request, saying that there was already a page called Boxer Uprising. This is true, but this is only a redirect to Boxer Rebellion. I therefore submitted a request at WP:Requested move, where an admin should take care of the problem. I just hope the discussion doesn't attract too many uninformed outsiders who decide to defend the title "Boxer Rebellion" simply because they've heard it before... Madalibi (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Who first used "Boxers" for Yihetuan?

Does anyone know where the word "Boxer" came from? I've seen it credited to Arthur Smith, but I can't remember where and it would require an authoritative citation to convince me.

Victor Purcell's The Boxer Uprising quotes reports from British missionaries he found in British Mission Archives (Appendix B). The earliest reports simply use the Chinese term, "I Ho Ch'uan" or "Secret Society." (p. 285) The first use of "Boxer" he quotes is 8 June 1899 (p. 286). This is not good enough evidence to put in the main article, but if anyone knows or can find a stronger source, it would make an interesting sentence for the article.

Purcell, incidently, is now criticized for wrongly going along with Lao Naixuan and other Chinese observers who assumed that the Yihetuan was a continuation of earlier "Secret Sects" going back to the 18th century. At one point Purcell says that the reason there is so little evidence for this is that a Secret Society operates in secret! There is a lot of good material in Purcell's book, but he did not have access to documentary and oral history material which Esherick and Cohen now use. ch (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Interesting points. I've long noticed the similarity of the Boxer uprising to other movements by beleauguered peoples, such as the Ghost Dance movement of the American Indians in 1890. The Boxers thus probably fit into the category of millenniarianism/revitalization movements. (Wiki's article on these could be expanded.) I'm skeptical that they had deep roots among the secret societies. They rather seem to me to have developed spontaneously, a peasant revolt, Chinese-style. But, as I said before, I don't know what Chinese sources say.
  • Re the naming of the Boxer, Thompson (p. 223 note 1) found the usage of the name on September 21, 1899 by Grace Newton, an American missionary in Shandong. From context in the letter, it appears it was a known term by then and he speculates that either Arthur Smith or Henry Porter, both missionaries, may have coined it. I certainly wouldn't object to putting Purcell's date of 8 June 1899 in the article. Smallchief (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Still no smoking gun, but the earliest mention indexed in a New York Times article is March 29, 1900. Arthur Smith says the name "I Ho Ch'uan... literally denotes the 'Fists' (Ch'uan) of Righteousness (or Public) (I) Harmony (Ho), in apparent allusion to the strength of united force which was to be put forth. As the Chinese phrase 'fists and feet' signifies boxing and wrrestling, there appeared to be no more suitable term for the adherents of the sect than 'Boxers,' a designation first used by one or two missionary correspondents of foreign journals in China, and later universally accepted on account of the difficulty of coining a better one." (China in Convulsion Vol I, pp. 154-55) Smith then goes on to say that another "designation" of the organization is the "Great Sword Society," a name of "apparently recent origin." Esherick at al do not accept the identity of these two groups, however. Still, this leaves open the possibility that Smith &/or Henry Porter coined the term. ch (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to Boxer Uprising

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I find no consensus for a move at this time. While the support and the opposition is roughly 50/50, I find most compelling the argument that reliable sources do not consistently use one title out the three or four possibilities mentioned just in this discussion. That would seem to suggest that there is no compelling reason to use the current title, but nor is there a compelling reason to use "uprising" over any of the others. Given that it seems the experts in the field cannot come to a consensus, I suppose it should be no surprise that Wikipedians cannot reach a consensus on which of the various titles is optimal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Boxer Rebellion → Boxer Uprising

• Western historians of China now overwhelmingly refer to the Boxers as an "uprising" rather than a "rebellion" (the most important works are Victor Purcell's The Boxer Uprising: A Background Study [1963], Joseph Esherick's Origins of the Boxer Uprising [1987], Paul Cohen's History in Three Keys [1997], and the edited volume called The Boxers, China, and the World [2007]). The older term "Boxer Rebellion" is still used in some popular sources by non-historians (such as Diane Preston's The Boxer Rebellion [2000]), but it is based on the belief that the Boxers had been anti-dynastic rebels before being used by the Qing court to attack foreigners. Historians have shown this interpretation to be a mistake. Because Western historical studies of the Boxers are our main reliable sources and because "titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by" (WP:CRITERIA), the move to Boxer Uprising seems both necessary and uncontroversial.

  The move was proposed on the talk page on July 8, and not a single editor has disagreed with it (see Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Change_Article_Name_to_.22Boxer_Uprising.22.3F). Judging that this constituted a consensus, I tried to make the move manually, but was told that there is already a page at Boxer Uprising. This is true, but Boxer Uprising is simply a redirect to Boxer Rebellion, so we would not be deleting any content. Thank you for your help. Madalibi (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since there is already consensus for this uncontroversial move, I think you could just put {{Db-movedab}} on Boxer Uprising and make the move once it's deleted. Quigley (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quigley. Thanks for letting me know about this option. I didn't know it existed. If I had known about it before, I might have used it to do the move with the help of an admin, but now that this request is officially open, I'd rather let the discussion run its course so that nobody can come later and say that they would have disagreed with the request but didn't have time to register their argument. Thanks a lot again! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Most accounts that I have seen call it the "Boxer Rebellion". What is the difference between an uprising and a rebellion? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Using "rebellion" implies -- incorrectly -- that the Boxers wanted to overthrow the government. The earliest accounts were based on the fiction that the government did not support the Boxers and accepted the now famous forgery, Ching-shan Diary by Sir Edmund Backhouse, 2nd Baronet, and other misleading arguments because discrediting the Chinese government would mean endangering payment of the indemnities. Later accounts sometimes did not understand the issues, but no scholar working in the field now thinks that the Boxers were rebels. Another consideration is that in Chinese, both in Taiwan and the PRC, the most common term is "Yundong," that is, "movement." Hope this helps! ch (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The term "rebellion" suggests that the Boxers first rebelled against the ruling dynasty, the Qing Dynasty. But as many historians have shown, from the very beginning the most common Boxer slogan was "Support the Qing, destroy the foreign." They were not rebels, just an anti-Christian movement that was eventually supported by the Qing court and turned directly against the foreign presence in China. Historian Joseph Esherick (the leading Western historian of the Boxers) calls the term "Boxer Rebellion" "truly a misnomer" based on "popular misconceptions." As he explains:

"After the movement was suppressed, both Chinese officials and the foreign powers realized that the Qing would have to continue as China's government. In order to save face for the Qing court and the Empress Dowager at its head, the fiction was created that the Boxers were really rebels, who happened to gain support from some Manchu princes who usurped power in Beijing. It was accordingly the 'Boxer Rebellion,' and the Qing only had to be punished for not supressing it earlier." (Source: The Origins of the Boxer Uprising [1987], p. xiv.)

Now Esherick's point would not be sufficient on its own. The key is that historians of China have overwhelmingly followed it, so that I can't think of a single historian who still uses "Boxer Rebellion." This term remains popular, but only in non-scholarly circles. Historians, who write the reliable sources on which WP:Naming says we should rely, have long abandoned it.

So to summarize, "rebellion" misleadingly suggests that the Boxers rebelled against the Qing, and reliable sources all use "Boxer Uprising."Madalibi (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The move sounds sensible to me.Smallchief (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• A brief scan of the Bibliography section indicates that usage is fairly evenly split and shows little if any historical trend away from "Rebellion". Powers ^T 13:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • With all respect, it doesn't seem that the usage over the last generation of scholars is "evenly split." In fact the "historical trend" is strongly away from "rebellion." In addition to the fact that both Purcell (1963) and Esherick (1987) use "uprising" in their titles, several other works, either in their titles or in the body of the text, use either "Boxer movement" or "Boxer War" in order to avoid "rebellion." And even if we said that the usage is "evenly split," when the clear consensus of the scholarly field is in one direction, we should recognize the correctness of their arguments. I hope this helps. ch (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • They could just as well be avoiding "uprising"; we don't know their motive for choosing "movement" or "war". Powers ^T 18:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi Powers. Your questions are legitimate, but they cannot be answered by looking solely at a list of titles. The bibliography will not tell you which books are considered the most reliable in the field, and it will not tell you how authors who say neither "rebellion" nor "uprising" in their title refer to the Boxers in their book. For example, Paul Cohen uses "Boxer Uprising" throughout History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth (one of the two most influential books on the Boxers, with Joseph Esherick's Origins of the Boxer Uprising). So do all ten authors of the edited volume The Boxers, China, and the World (2007). Another way to prove the dominance of "Boxer Uprising" in current scholarship is to see how scholars have been referring to the Boxers in monographs on the late-Qing and early Republican periods. Based on a sample of books I have at home, the following scholars all speak of "uprising" rather than "rebellion": David Strand in Rickshaw Beijing: City People and Politics in the 1920s (1989), Jonathan Spence in The Search for Modern China (1990), John Fitzgerald in Awakening China: Politics, Culture, and Class in the Nationalist Revolution (1996), James Hevia in English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China (2003), Lydia Liu in The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making (2004; she speaks of the "Yihetuan uprising"), Ruth Rogaski in Hygienic Modernity: Meanings of Health and Disease in Treaty-Port China (2004), and I could find more with a more thorough search. These are all well-known books by recognized scholars who have all accepted Joseph Esherick's argument that the Boxers cannot be called a rebellion. In other words, the trend is clear and the consensus is overwhelming! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't want to speculate on scholars' ultimate motives in using "Boxer movement" or "Boxer war" rather than the alternatives. Jane Elliott and Xiang Lanxin both wrote books about the "Boxer War" because they felt the military aspects of the Boxers had been neglected. Throughout her book, Elliott speaks of the "Boxer rising," a clear attempt to improve on "uprising." Xiang prefers "Boxer movement," though he does mention "Boxer Uprising" a few times and even speaks of "the so-called 'Boxer Rebellion.'" My impression is that "Boxer movement" is an increasingly influential name (and as such would deserve mention in the lede), but it is still far from from matching "Boxer uprising" in popularity among our reliable sources. Madalibi (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with LtPowers that there appears to be no trend away from "Rebellion" and towards "Uprising" (or "Movement", for that matter). Here's an ngram showing the persistent dominance of "Rebellion" over the past century: [7]. And a note: our choice of title does not imply that what occurred was, in fact, a rebellion. All it does is identify the series of events in the most recognizable way to our readers. Dohn joe (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks for taking time to do this search. I do see your point, but the first line of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is that "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." The problem is that ngrams have no way to distinguish between reliable sources and popular usage. The ngram results are also skewed by hits for a popular band (The_Boxer_Rebellion_(band)), a martial arts club,[8] and the like, which have nothing to do with the historical "Boxers." My point is that ngrams are not reliable guides on how to name an article. On the other hand, I've been arguing in some detail that historians of China (the authors of the reliable sources we're looking for) are now overwhelmingly using the term "Boxer Uprising." (I forgot to mention the authors of the Cambridge History of China, vol. 10: Late Ch'ing 1800-1911 [1978], who are also using it.) If we are serious about naming this article based on how reliable sources refer to it, I really think we should adopt "Boxer Uprising." Because it's such a common name, "Boxer Rebellion" should of course be mentioned in the lead. (Just as a note, both ch and I have a Ph.D. in Chinese history specializing in late-imperial times. We are presenting a field that we know fairly well.) Madalibi (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the ngram raises a serious point, whether we should go with the most widely used term in order to make it easier for readers to find an article. But there's always the redirect, which will bring a reader to the article whether they search for Rebellion, Movement, or Yihetuan. So this doesn't seem to be a problem for the reader. On the other hand, once you reach an article, you should get reliable information. Calling the article "Rebellion" is misleading. Could we ask you to reconsider on this basis? ch (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I respect the expertise of the editors here. And I'm certainly open to be convinced otherwise. However, from what I've seen, usage, even among reliable sources, is still split. I ran another search, this time of publications of the last 11 years, and "Rebellion" alone still comfortably outpaces "Uprising". I wouldn't be surprised if the "Rebellion" results skew towards more popular publications. But even so, don't these results suggest that many reputable and reliable sources still use "Rebellion"?

As for the issue of misleading the reader - to me, the purpose of the article title is simply to identify the subject, in the most user-friendly fashion. The article itself presents the substance - including how scholars interpret the events. Dohn joe (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for pursuing this interesting philosophical question with such practical means! However, I'm still convinced that the name of the article in some cases does convey meaning. The reason that there has been the move away from "rebellion" among those people, academics or not, who have read the evidence, is that in earlier times there was a misunderstanding of what happened, which has now been disproven. Maybe a "rose by any other name would smell as sweet," but if you try to sell me a dandelion labeled "rose" then I have a gripe. So, with all respect, I think the issue of misleading the reader is important. If the name is "rebellion" but there was no "rebellion," the reader has a gripe. What do we gain by making readers go through the article to find that the name is wrong?

Also thanks for the Google Scholar citations. It seems that they actually reinforce the case for moving away from "rebellion." I looked at the first two pages of "Boxer Rebellion" and none of the citations were to recent work in the field. The first cite on page one and the last cite on page two were to arthritis remedies -- is an "A Tooth from the Tiger's Mouth: How to Treat Your Injuries with Powerful Healing Secrets of the Great Chinese Warrior" a more reliable guide than the Cambridge History of China? Other citations were to reprints of older works, four or so were passing mentions in articles in other fields, one was a biography of an explorer, etc. etc. In other words, the examples from the search engine do not show "many reputable and reliable sources."

Cheers ch (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To add to CH's point, it would be difficult to have a page on the "Boxer Rebellion" that starts with, "The Boxer Uprising, which is popularly known as the Boxer Rebellion, was a movement..." Someone would inevitably say: "How can you start the lead with 'Boxer Uprising' when the page is called 'Boxer Rebellion'"? That would force us to explain the issue over and over again to editors who are not aware of our current discussion. To remain consistent, I think reliable sources should dictate both name and interpretation.

Also, despite searches that prove that "Boxer Rebellion" is a common expression (which it is), no one has cited a single reliable source that uses "Boxer Rebellion," whereas CH and I have cited more than 10 that use "Boxer Uprising": Esherick, Cohen, Purcell, Rogaski, Liu, Hevia, Fitzgerald, Strand, Spence, the Cambridge History of China, and The Boxers, China, and the World. (The last two could count as many more if we counted individual authors within them.) To compare: two books from our bibliography that have "Boxer Rebellion" in their title are part of the popular Osprey series on "Men-at-Arms" and "Campaigns."[9][10] These are tertiary popular sources, not the scholarly secondary sources that Wikipedia considers reliable (see WP:secondary). Diane Preston's The Boxer Rebellion (2000) is good popular history, but it's also a tertiary source (i.e., it relies on secondary scholarship rather than on primary sources). In the wiki's current bibliography, I can actually find more reliable sources that use "Boxer movement" (Xiang Lanxin's book on the Boxer war, David Buck's review article on Chinese scholarship concerning the Boxers, and James Hevia's article called "Leaving a Brand on China") than ones that use "Boxer rebellion."

I think we've built a fairly strong case for "Boxer Uprising" and that we're still lacking evidence for "Boxer Rebellion" in reliable sources. Please let us know what kind of evidence you would need to change your mind! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There should be no problem with titling the article different from the way the lead sentence begins -- just like Mark Twain or Minute Waltz. Powers ^T 13:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Powers. May I respectfully disagree? "Mark Twain" is just the name by which "Samuel Longhorn Clemens" is best known. There is no contradiction between the two. With the Boxers, on the other hand, we would have the name "Boxer Rebellion" followed by an explanation about why the Boxer movement was not a rebellion. This contradiction between name and interpretation will inevitably puzzle some readers. Another point: the wikis titled Kimbo Slice and Bill Clinton reflect the way these people are known in both popular and reliable sources. With the Boxers we have a slightly different problem: "Boxer Rebellion" seems more widespread in general, but "Boxer Uprising" dominates reliable sources. But this is not really a problem, since explicit Wikipedia policy dictates that reliable sources should be the basis for naming articles. Nowhere is it said that popular names can trump reliable sources. There are two obvious advantages to "Boxer Uprising": it would match the content of the article (no confusing contradiction between name and interpretation), and it would reflect the consensus of reliable sources (per WP:naming). It would be nice if opponents of the move could cite a few reliable sources that use "Boxer Rebellion" rather than "Boxer Uprising" or even "Boxer movement." Madalibi (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Minute Waltz" is longer than a minute long, but we still call it that despite any chance for confusion because the name is more recognizable to the average reader. Powers ^T 15:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No doubt Minute Waltz was adopted over Waltz_in_D-flat_major,_Op._64,_No._1_(Chopin) because of conciseness, one of the five principal naming criteria under WP:naming. "Boxer Uprising" and "Boxer Rebellion" are equally concise, but one is more by far more dominant in reliable sources. On what basis should we ignore reliable sources? Madalibi (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point I am primarily addressing your claim that using the "Boxer Rebellion" title would be confusing. The point I am trying to make is that we very often use inaccurate titles if that's the name by which the subject is most readily known. Powers ^T 18:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'm just trying to point out that in the case we're discussing, the discrepancy between name and substance would not be as trivial as in wikis like Minute Waltz or Hundred Years' War ("The Hundred Years' War was a series of wars waged from 1337 to 1453"). Even though it's a misnomer, there were good reasons to adopt "Minute Waltz": that name was chosen by the piece's original editor, it later became popular, it is far more concise than the official opus name, and it can be easily explained. With "Boxer Rebellion," a complex and no-longer-accepted interpretation is built into the term, so we would need a more subtantial explanation than for Hundred Days' Reform and the like. In any case, I think we've both made our point clearly, so I say let's just move on! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: reliable sources. I think you're taking a rather narrow view of what counts as a reliable source. I understand that scholarly works are often the most reliable, but the Preston and Osprey books are apparently reliable enough to cite over a dozen times in the article itself. And rightly so - according to WP:SOURCES, "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." Non-academic works can be reliable sources, even in the context of this very article.

Further, if you're looking for specific scholarly publications that use "Rebellion", here are a few from my above-posted searches:

• Van de Ven, Hans. "Robert Hart and Gustav Detring during the Boxer Rebellion." Modern Asian Studies (2006), 40: 631-662. Cambridge University Press.
• KNÜSEL, Ariane. ""Western Civilization" Against "Hordes of Yellow Savages": British Perceptions of the Boxer Rebellion." Asiatische Studien (2008), 62:43-83. Peter Lang. (in English)
• Ruxton, I. "Sir Ernest Satow in Tokyo, 1895-1900: From Triple Intervention to Boxer Rebellion". Diplomacy & Statecraft (2002), 13:135-160. Taylor & Francis.

Thanks for taking the time to find these three articles. I see no reason to doubt they are reliable sources. As for your first point, I agree that some popular sources might be considered reliable, but I think we need to make distinctions. As WP:RS has it: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." In essence, I've been arguing that the "best source" for determining the nature of the Boxer movement are the "academic and peer-reviewed publications" that WP:SOURCE says "are usually the most reliable sources." These academic sources happen to use "Boxer Uprising" much more often than "Boxer Rebellion." Popular sources may reflect the popularity of a name, but when it comes to deciding on a name, I think they are not "reliable for the statement being made." In other words, they can be used as references for some non-controversial details about the Boxers, but they shouldn't be used to support the interpretation of the Boxers that hides behind the name "Boxer Rebellion." As with the issue of reader confusion, I've made my point as clearly as I could, so I will stop here. Madalibi (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for making sure that we do not make a move without good reasons and forcing us to present our arguments more extensively, but I would like to ask whether there are. good reasons for keeping Boxer Rebellion which can be justified by Wikipolicies, and if so, which policies?

I also note that the articles are set in the terminolgy of the time -- Robert Hart's views, etc. ch (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would cite the same policy that's already been adverted to several times in this discussion: WP:NAMING. In the second paragraph, the policy states that "[g]enerally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles". Those five principles are 1) recognizability; 2) naturalness; 3) precision; 4) conciseness; and 5) consistency.

Applying the policy to this article title, I'd start by saying that reliable sources are split on what they call the subject. If we still disagree there, then so be it. If that's a fair statement, though, then we move to the five naming criteria. I'd say that "Rebellion" and "Uprising" are equal in recognizability, precision, conciseness, and consistency. As for the remaining criterion, naturalness, the policy urges us to ask: "What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles?" I think the answer to the first question is certainly "Rebellion", and I hope that you would agree it is still the more popular term overall. As for the second, currently, fewer than 50 pages link to Boxer Uprising, while nearly 2,000 pages link to Boxer Rebellion. Of course, those figures are almost certainly influenced by the current title being "Rebellion", but I would think that the answer to the question of editor linking would be no worse than a wash. Which still leaves, in my mind, the fact that readers are most likely to look for "Rebellion" as the deciding factor here. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes sense. I don't disagree with your logic, only with your claim that "reliable sources are split on what they call the subject." If we follow the main definition of reliable sources ("academic and peer-reviewed publications" on this topic), trust me, they are not evenly split. The Boxers are often a controversial topic, but two scholars in this field are telling you that there is a clear consensus among historians of the Boxers against understanding the Boxer movement as a rebellion. We have cited 12 scholarly books that use "Boxer Uprising," to which I am now adding Fa-ti Fan's British Naturalists in Qing China: Science, Empire, and Cultural Encounter [Harvard UP, 2004], and S.M.C. Paine's The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy [Cambridge UP, 2003]. We would find an even higher count if we also searched articles. In my interpretation of WP policy, we need to turn to popular sources only if reliable sources as defined above are evenly split. But since we seem to disagree about what "reliable sources" mean, I'm not sure we can convince each other! Madalibi (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's leave it in the hands of the closing admin, unless some other foolhardy editor comes around to kick up some dust. It's been a pleasure discussing this topic with the two of you, Madalibi and ch. Dohn joe (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that. It was nice debating with you too, Dohn joe (and Powers). This shows that there can be civil disagreements on Wikipedia. Madalibi (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: According to google books:

• "Boxer Uprising" -Llc 415
• "Boxer Rebellion" -Llc 330

-- Takabeg (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again for bringing more information to the discussion. The question is, however, not how many citations for “rebellion” vs. “uprising” we can find. The relevant point is that there is a strong consensus among those in the field, that is, "reliable sources," that the early moniker “rebellion” was wrong, not that over the last century there were more citations to “uprising.”

The argument for “Uprising” is first, “reliable sources.” The Google book listing does not tell us which are in reliable sources. Looking through the pages, I see Congressional hearings from 1915, two tertiarary surveys, etc etc.

As to the tie breakers, both titles are recognizable, natural, concise, and consistent – but “rebellion” is scarcely “precise,” since this was not a “rebellion” but a movement or an uprising.

Anybody searching for "Rebellion" will still find it -- no harm done.

I also note, although this should not decide things, that three of the supporters of “uprising” are editors who have done the most work in developing the article recently. ch (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The case for a move still depends on predicting future scholarly usage and supporting the trend of the more recent scholarship. In terms of well-established policy, neither is a valid argument. This move may well happen in the future, but we should give it a few more years at least. Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• With respect, would you reconsider? This is not "unverifiable speculation", the first criterion in predicting.That is, the case is not predicting, which I do not see on this page, but reporting. The standard summary works of long standing such as Fairbank and Reischauer East Asia: The Modern Transformation (1965), Cambridge History of China (1980), Jonathan Spence In Search of Modern China (1990), etc etc. The standard usage in the field, though not in the popular press, is very greatly not "rebellion" and "rebellion" is demonstrably wrong and should never have been used in the first place. A redirect page handles those who look for "rebellion," so nothing is lost, much is gained. Honest! ch (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Following well-established secondary sources from as much as 40 years ago does not constitute "predicting future scholarly usage." "Boxer Uprising" is the default reference for the Boxers in current scholarship, including in the two best historical works on the Boxers in English (Joseph Esherick's Origins of the Boxer Uprising [1987] and Paul Cohen's History in Three Keys [1997]), a large number of widely consulted reference works like those CH just cited, and almost all the books I could find on the late Qing. This is not support for a "new trend." "Boxer Uprising" is already clearly dominant in the relevant scholarly sources. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.