Talk:Twain–Ament indemnities controversy

title

The tile of this article may be a bit awkward. Is this the accepted name for this controversy? As it stands, I'm not sure if it passes the notability test. Not that it wasn't notable as an event - but is it the most notable way that it is remembered? Maybe even "Boxer indemnities controversy" might cover most of it - although I think that this encompasses more than Twain and Ament.Brian0324 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. It does seem awkward. I haven't found a short-hand way of referring to it. Any concocted title would have to involve "Mark Twain" and "Indemnities Controversy". I will see what I can find.smjwalsh (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I could not locate any standard way of referring to this controversy. Perhaps the best solution would be to rename this article "Mark Twain Boxer Indemnities Controversy". It contains the key terms "Mark Twain" and "Indemnities Controversy" but replaces China Missionary with "Boxer" and thus will attract the attention of those interested in the Boxer Uprising and Its Aftermath. If I knew how to re-title an article, I would do so myself. Can you help?(smjwalsh (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

wrong name entirely

No reliable source uses this name, and as such it is actually an improper article name. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better title? I agree the title is cumbersome. There is no standard short-hand way of referring to the controversy. I am open to Mark Twain Boxer Indemnities Controversy, as it includes all the relevant key words, and discards two other less helpful terms. I am willing to change it, but do not know how to do so.(smjwalsh (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Porter as source

Henry D. Porter is not a known biographer of anyone (only other book was on Dickinson), and the quality of the biography may be questionable.

I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, but respectfully disagree to your observations on this occasion.

Firstly, the number of books a person has written or had published is not a good way to gauge the quality of a person's scholarship. Porter's 1908 biography of Henry Dickinson Smith, does not disqualify him from being used as a source. If anything, prior publication better supports his abilities as a biographer.

Secondly, the reputation or notability of a biographer is also not especially relevant. Of course, a famous author possibly inspires more confidence, but is not necessarily more accurate. Most doctoral dissertations are written by relatively anonymous persons, but are usually regarded as the most authoritative accounts if the dissertation is accepted by a reputable university. In particular, an author may be relatively unknown today, and yet have been well-known at the time of publication. Almost a century has elapsed since Porter's book was published. Additionally, an author may be well-known and considered reputable within a particular group or sub-group and be almost invisible to the general population, but again this has little to do with the quality of the work itself.

Thirdly, it would be a great stretch to say that "the quality of the biography is likely questionable". I have read the biography from (digital) cover to cover. As I have indicated on the William Ament talk page, There is no doubt that Porter's biography is hagiographic in nature (or tending towards a "puff piece"), as was the biography of H.D. Smith. The proximity of its publication to Ament's death does not allow the mature reflection that is the hallmark of fine scholarship, however Porter knew Ament personally, having served as a medical doctor in China in Beijing and other ABCFM mission areas prior to and during the ministry of Ament. He therefore is a primary source, but with an emic perspective. I have used Porter with an extreme hermeneutic of suspicion, primarily in the area of providing biographical amnd historical information. His primary value is in providing accurate prosopographic details. Porter had access to the contemporary newspaper accounts, ABCFM records, and Ament's family correspondence. Porter is especially useful in knowing the missionary perspective on the Indemnities Controversy, but he does quote accurately the articles of Twain and other detractors of Ament. Porter's biography is the only full-length treatment of Ament's life and ministry, but the release of the apparently more scholarly and more objective treatment of Larry Clinton Thompson's William Scott Ament and the Boxer Rebellion: Heroism, Hubris and the Ideal Missionary (McFarland & Company, March 2009) should provide a better source for analysis and evaluation.(smjwalsh (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

China controversy

The use of the term "Mark Twain China Missionary" etc. is not supported by any reliable source.Collect (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in contending for the the term, and am open to another short-hand way of referring to it.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

The article about to the person sitting in darkness does not mention Ament at all. Collect (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what your problem has been. The cite given previously was to an expurgated version. The unexpurgated version of Twain's article "To the Person Sitting in Darkness", 25% of the article refers to the Indemnities Controversy. Ament is mentioned specifically by name 8 times - 3 times in newspaper articles quoted in full by Twain, and another 5 times by Twain himself.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

There is, if anything, a bit of coatracking going on. The arguments about the missionaries included a great many people, not just Mark Twain. Collect (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your argument here. Sorry. Other people certainly became involved in the controversy - but it was Twain and Ament who are both central to the controversy. It was Twain's initial February 1901 article in the North Atlantic Review that fanned the controversy into flame, and his subsequent April 1901 follow-up article "To My Missionary Critics", which references Ament in the subtitle and again repeatedly in the article, that kept the controversy alive. Almost all Twain biographies consulted reference Ament and this controversy, as it is one of the first public attacks on Christianity by Twain published.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

The article is not primarily about the Philippine-American War, but rather is a polemic against imperialism (check Twain scholars referenced in both Ament and Controversy articles), using the situation in China, South Africa and the Philippines as examples. The missionaries (specifically Ament and his colleagues) are seen as agents of imperialism.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Again, using the term "Mark Twain China Controversy" whatever is not supported by any reliable source. WP is not the place to coin a name for a "controversy" which is not called by that name in any reliable source. Collect (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose I do in relation to the naming the controversy? In the original Ament article, it was sensibly suggested that a separate article be created for the controversy. In the absence of any standard name for the controversy, one needed to be coined. The one I chose was a place holder until a better title for the controversy and article could be discovered. It has not been suggested yet. My suggestion is the Mark Twain Boxer Indemnities Controversy, or even the Mark Twain Missionary Controversy.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)).

Also, it looks like the material properly belongs in the anti-imperialism section, not in the religion section in the first place. I shall trust you shall move the material to the appropriate section. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have no major objections, inasmuch as Twain himself primarily saw it as an example of imperialism, but the negative reactions to his initial article were primarily from religious sources, and his subsequent article was almost exclusively focused on the morality of looting, indemnities and the missionaries' leadership. So, while the origins were (in Twain's mind) anti-imperialistic, the controversy quickly became religious in nature. Again, I am not sufficiently vested in whetre in the article it should be placed.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)).

Anent this, I would think "China missionary indemnity controversy" would be a reasonable name for an article (capitalizing every word implies that it is a title in common usage, which it is not), and add the comments of the others who were involved (Twain was far from the only person to be sure). Collect (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the Twain WP article, your suggestion would be fine, as long as there was a link to the Controversy article

However, outside the context of the Twain WP article, removal of any reference to Twain would make the title less helpful. Your suggested title would encompass far more than the article currently covers. It would involve the Roman Catholic Church and others. In fact, it would be a subset of the whole indemnities debate within the context of the aftermath of the Boxer Uprising.

What would be wrong with making the China missionary indemnity issue cover a larger area than just Ament and Twain? Seems to me that it could be a fairly major article relating to Chinese history is handled correctly (and should be more closely linked to Chinese history than to Twain, to be sure.) Need help on such an expansion? Collect (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have no objections to that. If the article was expanded both Twain and Ament would be very much part of the article but have a relatively lesser role as other positions and protagonists are included. There is mention in the Controversy article that the China Inland Mission refused any indemnities - so the two polarities would be those who accepted and those who rejected indemnities. Within those who accepted, there is also diversity - based on the extent of indemnities demanded and the means of enforcement. There ought to be some coverage in the Boxer Uprising article on indemnities - not just those demanded for nations but also for mission groups and also indigenous Chrtians. These are not my major research interests, but I no doubt would contribute to these areas should they be developed. (smjwalsh (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)).

And on the Ament article, I would suggest that Porter is not a Bible on the topic, his article needs genuine outside sourcing as well.Collect (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one suggests Porter is authoritative. It was, in fact, one of the very last sources I used, and then primarily in the area of biographical details. The Ament article references dozens of other sources, as can be seen in both Further Reading and the References section.

In which case -- why not endorse the expansion of the missionary-indemnity article relating to Chinese history? Making Ament a more minor player (he was not seemingly the biggest personage there) whould make for a more encyclopedic article, no? Collect (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy to see ANY article expanded (and as necessary sub-divisde into other articles). Ament was one of the pre-eminent American missionaries in Beijing, was superintendent of the ABCFM mission in China, and the focus of the Twain-generated critique, but in the context of the whole indemnities issue, the main players are the Eight Nations Alliance. The missionary indemnities issue is obviously a sub-set of this issue, but interesting because the Eight Nations sought reparations/indemnities for themselves and their citizens, whereas some missionary groups (especially Ament and the ABCFM) sought indemnities for Chinese citizens (Christians) who had suffered loss in the Boxer Uprising. Ament and the ABCFM would have been compensated through the United States' claims, but they saw the immediacy of the needs of their followers.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)).

IIRC, the US claims were used to establish funds for the education of Chinese students in the US, not to pay off any churches. Collect (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer his theological discourses be found under "religion" if anyone can actually come up with a guaranteed correct version of what he meant <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

name still not found in any reference

Per discussion elsewhere, I suggest that the name "Mark Twain" not be attacked to the title as it is not found as such a phrase in any reliable source at all. "Boxer Rebellion indemnities controversy" is a NPOV and accurate use. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As we have have discussed there is NO standard way of referring to the series of interchanges that comprise this controversy. Mark Twain's February article , "To the Person Sitting in Darkness", made the controversy a cause celebre as it was his popularity and reputation that fanned what would have only been a minor issue of transient nature into a raging conflagration in dozens of newspapers in the USA, the UK and China. It was Twain's article that inspired letters to the editor, it was Twain's article that was reprinted by the tens of thousands and distributed by the Anti-Imperialism League. Without Twain's involvement, it is doubtful there would have been such a controversy. Chamberlin's 24 December 1900 report in the NY Sun seemingly was not commented upon by anyone until Twain intervened. To remove Twain from the title of the article would be to distort the nature of the article. The article is very much about Twain AND the Indemnities issue. If anything could be deleted it is "Boxer". Their involvement in the controversy is at best tangential, as the controversy was not about the eaxtion of tribute from the Boxers, but about taking from other Chinese not responsible for the damage to person and property. Twain is one of the two primary protagonists, with Ament the other key member of the dramatis personae. Certainly within the evangelical and other Christian literature, such an appellation would be instantly acknowledged, and I believe also within the supporters of Twain.(smjwalsh (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

In any case, I don't see where reference to Twain in in title is POV. In re-reading the article, I don't see that Twain comes off poorly at all. He had a legitimate complaint about the reported behaviour of Ament and some of his colleagues, and argued his case well, even after Ament's supporters and Ament himself were able to correct some of the initial reported facts.(smjwalsh (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

First -- the one in the controversy was Ament, not Twain. Secondly, Twain was not the only person opposing Ament. Third, no reliable source uses this title or anything like it at all. Usually placing a person's name on a controversy implies thier direct involvement in the controversial acts. Try Ament Boxer Rebellion indemnities controversy then. Collect (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously in a controversy there are two opposing positions. In this particular controversy, the two primary protagonists are Twain and Ament with each having both supporters and detractors. Consequently, in the absence of ANY standard designation for this controversy, then the Ament-Twain indemnities controversy would be the most NPOV title. I can see the virtue of adding Ament but not of deleting Twain. While it was Ament's (alleged) actions that were the ultimate cause of the controversy, tt was Twain's fame and writing that was the proximate cause. You don't deny Twain's involvement - your argument - like Ament's defence - is that there were others involved, not just Twain. Even that being so, Twain was one of the two primary individuals in the debate. I again fail to see why you are so reluctant to involve Twain. He is hardly a stranger to controversy, and in this case his polemic against Ament, and its subsequent follow-up "To My Missionary Critics" in April 1901, suggests he welcomed being at the centre of this maelstrom.(smjwalsh (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)).

Most controversies are named for the "guilty party" or at least the person most affected by the situation, not for the person who opposed them. In point of fact, the term "controversy" may not be best used here in the first place. "Ament and Boxer Rebellion indemnities affair" might be even better. For more, I can suggest Denby's "China and Her People" pp 217-8 etc. Collect (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We are agreed that there is no standard way of referring to this cause celebre, that the cause celebre is sufficiently notable to warrant a WP article, but that all names suggested thus far have some inadequacies. I looked at the Denby citation you suggested, and while it specifically names Ament, it also alludes to Twain: "The raid made on Doctor Ament some years ago is an example of how incautious people, who especially yearn to be funny, handle this subject." From other similar critiques of Twain's "To the Person Sitting In Darkness" and "To My Missionary Critics", there is no doubt it is Twain. The truth is the title could change depending upon from where it is viewed. From Twain's perspective, it would be the Ament Indemnities Affair. From the viewpoint of Ament and his supporters, it would be the Twain Critique. The context would allow the auditor to know the referent incident. It could be profitable to call it the Twain-Ament Indemnities Controversy, as it would be NPOV, whereas any article title mentioning the one without the other could be see as POV. If the standard works referred to it as the Ament Affair (similar to the Dreyfus Affair), I would readily concur, but in the absence of ANY standard appellation, the standard must be NPOV and a title that accurately identifies the content without seeing anyone as the "guilty party". Twain certainly saw Ament as guilty, and prosecuted him vigorously, even using legal terminology when he indicated that Ament "arraigned" himself. If the legal analogy was used it would be Twain Vs. Ament. If a boxing analogy was used, it would be the Twain-Ament fight. From Twain's perspective, it would be the Ament case, or Ament fight. From Ament's perspective, it would be the Twain case, or the Twain fight. NPOV, theefore suggests that it be Twain-Ament (or vice versa) Indemnities Controversy. This would be preferable to Twain-Ament Affair as this would suggest a relationship between the two protagonists that neither would welcome.(smjwalsh (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

I still don't think that this title is fitting. I would propose broadening the scope of this to include all of the "Boxer Rebellion indemnities controversy" because Twain and Ament are just notable examples of a broader argument that took place after the Boxer Crisis of 1900. The current title implies that the controversy only existed between these two opposing figures, which, as we all seem to agree, do not have a specific controversy named after each other in any sourced material per se. So, in effect we are creating a term ala neologism WP:NEO - and I don't think that it is necessary to have this title to address this controversy - which is notable on a broader level.Brian0324 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As there is no standard name for this notable debate/controversy; and WP articles need names, I cannot see how ANY title would not be a neologism. Consequently, listening to your comments and others, I have continued to modify title accordingly as the article content has evolved. At this time, I believe the current article title is most appropriate, as the content focuses primarily on the accusations against Ament by Twain, with the other participants either supporting Twain or Ament. However, as the article evolves to a broader discussion (or perhaps a new article is created that looks at the Twain-Ament dialogue within the broader context), then a new article title (or new article) will be necessary. Ultimately, the name you are proposing is perhaps two steps removed from the present article content - Your suggested title would not only include the Twain-Ament debate, but also the Missionary Looting debate, and then the whole debate about Indemnities. I have started gathering material on the Missionary looting debate with material on criticisms of Roman Catholic missionaries, and intemperate remarks by other Protestant missionaries, and justifications of "looting" by missionaries, but am not ready to research the broader context yet. Perhaps you or Collect might create a broader article entitled "The Boxer Rebellion Indemnities Controversy" (although this too would be a neologism), with a Missionary Looting section that would then link to article I would create that looks at that, with a link to (a reduced) Twain-Ament article.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

I concur that using the names of the claimed protagonists makes the article less valid that it ought to be. OTOH, I wish the huge amount of "additional reading" would go as it is not generally used in WP articles, and that has more to do with article quality than the name has <g>.

I struggle to see how an article would have increased quality by reducing sources and further reading, but am willing to trim this section soon.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

OK. Have started an article on Pierre-Marie-Alphonse Favier, Roman Catholic Bishop of Beijing, who (in the light of Ament controversy) was also accused of looting after the Boxer Uprising. Initially there will be a one sentence reference to Favier in Controversy article. Other projected articles will be on Gilbert Reid and Judson Smith, who both feature in Controversy. My initial research is that there were few (if any) others accused specifically of looting - just Ament and Favier. (smjwalsh (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

I have pretty much finished the article on Pierre-Marie-Alphonse Favier who was "Bishop of Beijing" and accused of looting in the aftermath of the Boxer Uprising. I would appreciate your perspective on that article. I have included some connection between this family of articles. Research suggests almost everybody was involved in "looting" - Boxers, Qing officials, embassy officials, soldiers from both sides of the Boxer War, Chinese subjects, ex-patriates and missionaries. However, Ament and Favier seem to be both the most notable and prevalent in the literature (both in China and the West). I have also done some research on Herbert G. Squiers, a Roman Catholic lay member of Favier's congregation and the principal secretary of the American legation, who was also accused of having the 2nd largest collection of loot. The next project would be on Rev. Gilbert Reid, who defends missionary looting as "high ethics" as it saved the lives of thousands of Chinese Christians, and Rev. Dr. Judson Smith, who vigorously defended Ament and engaged Twain in public correspondence.(smjwalsh (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

additional sources overkill

Aren't we in the realm of overkill on "additional reading" stuff? WP needs sources for claims for articles written in a summary style. No one is going to follow a hundred suggestions for additional reading, are they? I would suggest substantial pruning in that area, and stick to solid cites for the claims in the article corpus. Let serious students look at the cites for the claims, and then follow the reference lists in those books and articles rather than trying to list every possible book in the LoC that they might find a fact or two in. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me work on reducing the additional reading list. Most recent additions were actually an attempt to broaden the article, with references to Roman Catholics and others criticised for missionary looting. My methodology is to locate relevant sources preparatory to writing relevant article material, then reducing sources to most relevant. I'm still adjusting to WP being less specific and less scholarly than peer-reviewed journal articles. (smjwalsh (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)).

Very less scholarly <g>. Ideally we present the major facts and cites for those facts. Can you use some of these new sources to broaden the article directly instead of indirectly? Collect (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My intention is to use the new sources exactly as you suggest. By including them in Further Reading for now, I won't misplace references for the research I am doing. Eventually, most references will be inline citations, with a select list of further reading. I have not finished researching this area yet, so would ask patience as I work through the process.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

I respect the amount of work done, and was not about to take a cleaver to the list (maybe a butterknife?). After that, we could likely remove the sources which substantially duplicate each other? In general, if you find a newer source cites the older source and does not add more information, my personal preference is to use the older source as being closer to the events. Others might go the other way, I suppose. Collect (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have trimmed both Ament and Controversy articles, but will do more through use of inline references. As regards, sources, always best to get earlier reference, but for further reading perhaps most accessible source.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Hard to rank accessability -- I have Denby on my shelf, but a lot of libraries don't. Using ones which are available online may inadvertently insert a subtle bias I suppose as well. Perhaps books which are readily available from Amazon or ABE as used books? Collect (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)