Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:No, the current pictures shows the largest battle of the war and showed a soldier who is very notable. ] (]) 16:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::I have not used a single textbook from mainland china, or any chinese source for that matter, while you reference Chinese websites (with .cn domain) and claim that i am the one who is copying PRC textbooks?
:I'm open to it, and the description of "boys-own looking" is quite correct. But it's better for someone to bring forward a specific alternative which we can use under the policies and directly compare the current picture to. ] (]) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:We should change it back to a battle in accordance with what most war pages do since a map does not exist. I don't understand why we want to "change it to show more actual focus on the rebellion aspect" when ] exists. The Boxer Rebellion is not understood as a movement but as a war or intervention. I believe we should change it back. ] (]) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::I agree, this was a major war. I perfer the that included three pictures and information on what parts of the British Empier helped. ] (]) 23:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I support making a four-quadrant infobox as a compromise with the 3 old infoxbox images plus the current one (even though it's already in ] where I personally believe it belongs). That should correct the issue raised by ] about the infobox being too long. However we need to get ] on board since they've reverted changes to the current image which they changed it to. ] would you support the old infobox in four-quadrants with your ] picture? ] (]) 16:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, that sounds like a solid compromise. ] (]) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Infobox military conflict
| conflict = Boxer Rebellion
| partof =
| date = 1899–1901
| place = Northern China
| result = Allied victory
| combatant1 = Eight-Nation Alliance
| combatant2 = Boxers
| image = {{multiple image
| border = infobox
| perrow = 2
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Siege of Peking, Boxer Rebellion.jpg
| alt1 =
| image2 = Battle of Tientsin Japanese soldiers.jpg
| caption = '''From top to bottom, left to right''':
{{flatlist|* Siege of the Legations in Peking * Battle of Tientsin * Battle at Beijing Castle * Boxer Rebellion painting * Boxers in China * allied artillery}}
::One Page 153 of Criitical Zone 3: A Forum of Chinese and Western Knowledge by Professor Douglas Kerr of the University of Hong Kong, it mentions that Dr. Sun Yatsen praised the Boxers for fighting western imperialists.
}}
:::I think this could work, I mean the top 4 are all the same style (maybe crop out the description in picture 3) but other than that they all go together. Same thing with the two pictures, they both look good together. This is just an idea, but I think it would look good. I also think the boxer Rebellion can easily get 6 pictures in there info-box.
::Also, i specifically mentioned how two Manchu princes, ], and ] sabotaged the Chinese army during the war to let the western imperialist powers seize beijing, this is covered extensively in the current article.
:::Only change I would make is to crop out the extra descriptions and blank stuff on pictures 3 and 5. ] (]) 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::No, the images are too small at this size, and thus defeat the purpose. ]] 20:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::the fact is, that Chinese Christains were acting as spies and agents for the western militaries and this is why the Kansu Braves and the Boxers went house to house to eliminate them, because they were providing information to the western miliaries.
::::Like I said it is just an an idea. We could make the picture or info-box. We should at least have more than one picture in the info box. ] (]) 20:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::No infobox has to have multiple images. We should have an infobox that fulfills its purpose (key facts at a glance), and multiple images should only be entertained if they do not interfere with that, A mosaic of small color blobs would interfere in this way. ]] 20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::And, testimony directly from the westerners and western soldiers fighting in this war state on how the Chinese army was using modern artillery and weapons to systematically destroy and defeat them numerous times, from "Indiscreet Letters from Peking: Being the Notes of an Eye-witness" and " China in convulsion, Volume 2" are eyewitness accounts from westerners in the war that i reference, which stated repeatedly that the Chinese army outgunned, defeated, and used advanced tactics like sniping and hidden artillery to ravage eight nation alliance positions. And since these were primary source, i used "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", which is a secondary source by a scholor Jane E. Elliott, and it backs up everything in the primary sources.] (]) 00:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::All I am saying is we should have more than one. ] and ] would go together. I just thing only have File:Boxer-tianjing-left.jpeg, is too little and doesn't show the full war. ] (]) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I will repeat myself: we do not have to have more than one image; it is more important that the images we present are legible. ]] 20:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with you ] that 6 images is too much (though I refer you to ], ], and ] to support that it's probably more often than not that infoboxes have multiple images).
User:Дунгане, thanks for your comment, and I shall try my best to put forward my POV, and hopefully we would reach some sort of consensus.
::::::::However, referring to the above discussion, we came to an agreement that a 4 quadrant infobox was justified and probably necessary to strike a balance between "western-centric" depictions and ones which accurately depict the movement underlying the war. However, there is a distinct difference between ''who the Boxers were'' and the ''conflict itself''.
::::::::Moreover, we need to keep in mind that the ] involved numerous countries and their depictions of the conflict will inform a viewer's first impression and understanding of the page.
::::::::As it stands, and where I agree with ], an image simply depicting the ] does not do this page justice. We are currently ''over simplifying'' the infobox which is not its purpose. Let's get back to designing a four quadrant infobox which strikes a balance between ''over simplification'' and ''over complication'' if you are ok with that ]. If not, let's discuss the issue with a multipolar depiction beyond that "we do not have to have more than one image" when there is a clear expression and agreement that more than one image would enhance the page.
(1) "The Boxer Rebellion, also called The Boxer Uprising by some historians or the Righteous Harmony Society Movement in northern China, was ananti-colonialist, anti-Christianmovement by the "Righteous Harmony Society" (Yìhétuán), or "Righteous Fists of Harmony" or "Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists" (known as "Boxers" in English), in China between 1898 and 1901. The uprising took place in response to imperialist expansion (into China) involving European opium traders, political invasion, economic manipulation, and missionary evangelism. "
::::::::As a proposal to get this started, how about four quadrants - one with a Japanese depiction, one picture of the Boxers, the siege of Tientsin, and another picture depicting the Boxers or allied troops? ] (]) 13:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::As long as they're all legible I am not opposed to having four images, but I do not agree that the present state is untenable or oversimplified. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, this lead section is straight out of the ], and need to be rewritten. Notice the word "Uprising" (Chinese: 起义) being used, and '''The uprising took place in response to imperialist expansion (into China) involving European opium traders, political invasion, economic manipulation, and missionary evangelism. ''', which is full on and pure propaganda stuff, is not of encyclopedic standard.
::::::::::I'm glad we're in agreement! I would design the infobox myself but I am sure someone else can do a better job.
::::::::::I don't think the current state is untenable but the depiction of the Boxers also isn't great. It looks like a scan from somebody's photo album since the image appears it was cut and pasted from the look of the upper border. The numerous artist illustrations depicting the war should be legible. ] (]) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(1)Now, what exactly was "Boxer" ? Let us look at 拳變餘聞, an article by 羅惇曧
:::::::::::I don't think the current state is a concern nor see it as oversimplified though I am happy with the proposed four picture approach representing a variety of belligerents. I am however a strong proponent of using photographs for this, as opposed to illustrations. Going back to the comment of IP who kicked off this discussion in April, the Western illustrations can be more than a bit ], which is to say - the fanciful glory and adventure of war. I'm thinking of the Siege of the Legations illustration when I say this, have to say the other illustrations aren't quite legible to me in the six picture format. Sticking to photographs is better. ] (]) 13:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
1871年—1924年, who had also written 庚子國變記, and both articles can be found in Chinese wikisource.In 拳變餘聞, '''義和拳稱神拳，以降神召眾，號令皆神語。傳習時，令伏地焚符誦咒，令堅合上下齒，從鼻呼吸，俄而口吐白沫，呼曰神降矣，則躍起操刃而舞，力竭乃止。''' Now 神拳, is kind of ], a mix of hypnotic power, magic power, mystic power, Chinese poly-Gods power, in short, a kind of Chinese Kung Fu plus ] show. Their then claims of flying in thin air, immune to bullet or knife assaults, and the ability to summon divine spirit soldiers, are just pure fantasy, the stuff where Hollywood movies were made of.<br>
::::::::::::Strongly agreed with the "no illustrations" point. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(2) Quoted from: 拳變餘聞 : 拳匪, 匪, bandits, so in ] time, Boxers were classified as bandits, were to be put down by the then government.<br>
:::::::::::::To be fair articles contemporary with ] use illustrations. ''See, e.g''. ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ''But see'' ].
(3) Quoted from: 拳變餘聞 :拳匪始於毓賢，成於載漪、剛毅，人所習聞。Boxer bandits were supported by Manchu officials : 毓賢，載漪、剛毅.<br>
:::::::::::::However, I have a few proposed photographs which evidently must be in the public domain.
::::::::::::I can agree photographs are better, I personally believe that ] is one of the better pictures wecan uses. ] could go with with it in a 4 quadrant infobox. ] (]) 17:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Fromtheabovesentence, itisveryclearthat剛毅(Manchuofficial) wasthemainplayerintheBoxerRebellion.Ok,Ithinkweshould use the 拳變餘聞asasource,oncewetranslateit,whatdoyouthink?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><fontcolor="blue"><sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 10:42, 25October2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think that one is good too, but could do with a crop. ], This is a good start (tried to do some very rudimentary observation of the ]) but may require another iteration to show up properly in a crowded infobox. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Perhaps maybe this image could work. It's a collage with elements of both the Western Intervention and the Boxer Movement.
::::::::::::::] ] (]) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think that the fact that Yuxian massacred a bunch of europeans does not mean anything about Manchu people. General ] was Han, and he killed hundreds of foreigners during the rebellion, but he wasn't even punished because the Manchu Qing court refused to execute him, but they executed Yuxian.
:::::::::::::::I think it would be an economical solution to include two images: one in the vein of the present image illustrating the rebellion as such, and one illustrating the Western intervention. Does that sound viable? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::, and lets remember that Christians used to accuse women of being witches, burned them alive at stakes, crushed them to death under rocks, and hung them, all based flimsly accusations, claiming the Boxers are stupid isn't helping advance your position. go look at ]
: This points to a problem: the article title is "Boxer Rebellion" (though I am among those who think it should be "Boxer Uprising") not "Boxer War." So I support the quest for at least a picture that has something to do with the Boxer Rebellion or Uprising. Maybe a map? ] (])
::And not all Manchus were pro Boxer, the two princes ], and ] were Manchu, and they backstabbed China by sending manchu bannermen first to attack the Boxers, and Ronglu even tried to force General Nie to concentrate on killing boxers and ignore the western invaders.
::the lead was not even taken from any propaganda department. it was a FACT that western countries seized concessions in China, a Chinese temple was forcibly converted into a catholic church, which set off a major protest and foreign invaders killed chinese civilians for no reason.
::Manchu prince Ronglu even tried to help the foreigners in the legations against the Muslim Kansu warriors and the boxers, sending food to them. The Manchu Prince Qing sent 10,000 troops to attack the Muslim and Boxer warriors who were fighting the foreigners.
::Manchu Dowager Empress Cixi herself said- "Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?"
::the court was forced to support the Boxers because the western powers launched an '''illegal''' invasion during the ] without asking '''permmission''' from the Chinese government.] (]) 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
In response to your comment,
*(1) "Christians used to accuse women of being witches and burn them", that can not be used as an excuse for the boxers to kill anyone, westerners or oriental. It is not OK to burn people who were simply being accused as "witches", it is also not OK to chop off the heads of Christians, for whatever reason.
*(2)義和拳稱神拳，以降神召眾，號令皆神語...其神則唐僧、悟空、八戒、沙僧、黃飛虎、黃三太。<br> The boxers were originally called 神拳, had kind of "divine power", or spirit power out of this world. And all foreigns were ], ghost men, not human beings. The Chinese Gods VS Western ghosts concept is the essential part of the Boxer Rebellion theme, once the foreigns were given the "Ghost Men" status, then they can be killed at random, the question of morality just do not apply here, because they were killing Ghosts anyway, they were not killing Human beings.
*(3)拳匪 The boxers were a bunch of bandits, from beginning to the end, and no historian can deny it. At one stage they were under the Qing court's command, and weapons were issued, but had never received any proper military training, and Manchu generals had no intention to convert them into regular army. Once they passed the used by date, it was just game over.
*(4) "the court was forced to support the Boxers because the western powers launched an '''illegal''' invasion during the ] without asking'''permmission''' from the Chinese government." Well, with or without Manchu Court's support, the Boxers were always just a bunch of bandits, they belong in the world of fantasy, the world of supernatural, and the world of superstition. And the lead section should state this fact clearly. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 06:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
::The "origins of the Boxers" section in the article already explains the supernatural beliefs of the boxers. You are adding nothing new to the article] (]) 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Since "Boxers" belong to the realm of supernatural, superstition and fantasy, then all these talk of " anti-colonialist", "anti-Christian", "uprising", "in response to imperialist expansion ", these are just empty talks, because these are serious political and sociological issues, issues that are too complex for "Boxers" to understand. Boxers were mobs, rioters, bandits, and murderers. They were nothing but puppets, manipulated by the Qing court. The lead section should be clear about it. the current lead section is giving all the readers a wrong impression, all the wrong "words" should be removed.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 08:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Dr. Sun Yatsen himself '''praised''' the Boxers who were fighting against Western imperialist forces who raped women, killed civilians, and looted from innocent peasants. You accuse the Boxers of not being able to understand "anti imperialism". What the Boxers understood was that westerners blatantly violated Chinese soveirgnty, with western imperialist Christian missionaries '''seizing'''' a Chinese Temple to convert to a Church, killing innocent Chinese to take over more ], and blatantly exhibiting racism, the British Admiral ] fought in China during the arrow war and claimed Chinese were primitive and easy to defeat, but his entire army was '''defeated''' at ] during the Boxer war, and he only escaped because the Qing court '''STOPPED''' The boxers from attacking the Western imperialist army.
::::In addition, Imperial army Kansu muslim forces only killed Christians who were spies for the foreigners, they did not kill innocent civilians, and did not rape anyone, They even had , unlike the western troops who killed, raped, and destroyed. One of the Imperial army Kansu soldiers even said, "You seem to be thoroughly respectable people: what a pity you should reside near with nest of foreign converts and spies" They even apologized for intruding.
::::And also, western Christians blatantly '''lied''' and filed a . It all turned out to be faked, because the western imperialist powers wanted to station troops in China, and violate Chinese soil.] (]) 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Дунгане, there are hundreds of books written by many scholars, and it is natural that all these scholars have their own opinions towards the "Boxers", and I totally agree with you about the "western imperialists" bit, and we can go on and on about the American Red Indians being wiped out, the Australian Aboriginals being exterminated, India being colonized, so on and so forth. As a wiki editor, we are here to help everyday readers, not to confuse them. The title is "Boxer rebellion", first thing first, it is about "Boxer", and you and me have agreed that, they were just a bunch of mob, consisted of rioters, murderers, who also claimed to be possessed by Chinese divine spirits and hence were capable to perform various death defying supernatural feats. I am not against editors adding "anti western imperialists " content, but there is a limit, and also the balance, and the structure of the article, that we need to take care of. My POV is, the recently added content on (1) Muslim Army (2) Han Chinese Army (3) Qing Army, is a bit over the top. These additional content has kind of overshadowed the main theme, which is about "Boxer", and it's "Rebelion". <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 00:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
::The Europeans besieged in the legations, reported that they could not see a single Boxer during the siege of the legation quarter. The Boxers melted away into the countryside and began their attacks there The siege was entirely conducted by the Imperial Army, and since the foreign expeditions into China were aimed at relieving the siege, it is the Imperial Army which played a major part.] (]) 06:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
:Again, the article, since it's name is "Boxer Rebellion", so we should talk about what they did, and not about what they didn't do. Of course the Boxers were backed up by the Imperial Troops, of course Imperial Troops did disguise themselves as Boxers and ambushed the invading westerners, there is no need to go into great details, as we can always create new article such as ]
, into which we are free to add all the details we like. Likewise, sections ] and ] are both too bulky, need to be trimmed down. You agree ?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
::not all Boxers joined because they believed in supernatural things, ] was a devout Muslim, and did not believe in any of the ghost or the other stuff, he was famous for challenging foreign fighters to martial arts fights, to disprove their claims that they were superior to Chinese. Wang was a member of the Boxers during the rebellion and fled into hiding into a mosque after it was over.
::And the ] has the words "French" and "Indian" in its name, but it was really about the British and Indians vs French and Indians, titles do not include all aspects of the articles.
::If you create separate articles they need to be '''specifically''' about the units and divisions which fought during the boxer Rebellion, and not the Imperial army in general. Don't add the stuff on bannerman to the ] article, specific articles for the units like ]'s "Tiger and Divine Corps" bannermen need to be created.] (]) 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
== Rewrite of the article ==
I have begun to do sort of rewrite, beginning at the lead section, to make it more concise and cohesive. Any editors who have different opinions are welcome to join me here. Thanks.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 07:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
== ==
There's a random "" in the Origins section (that's not a reference link): "Then the Boxer slogan became "support the Qing, destroy the Foreign." (扶清灭洋) ". I assume this is supposed to be using the same reference as what reference 3 currently is (Spence (1999) pp. 231-232), but I'm not familiar enough with the topic or source to go and change that. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
== ] to appear as POTD soon ==
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that ] will be appearing as ] on November 2, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at ]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the ] so Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) <!-- substituted from ] -->
{{POTD/2010-11-02|allowedit=y}}
:P.S. I scheduled this image for this day because the article infobox says that the rebellion started on 2 November 1899, but that date isn't mentioned anywhere in the article itself, and from what I can tell from reading this, there wasn't exactly a specific date where everything started, so where did this date come from? <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 23:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why Nov 2 is given as the date of the beginning of the Boxer Rebellion. A traditional date for its beginning (from the foreign viewpoint) was the murder on Dec 31, 1899 of a Christian missionary in Shandong province. He was the first foreigner killed by Boxers. Smallchief 23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
== Bias ==
This article is biased. The point of an encyclopedia article cannot be to argue that the boxers were heroes, or that western armies engaged in "illegal" acts. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== NPOV ==
The article have many issues:
# The name "Boxer Rebellion" it self is derogatory, their own name is Righteous Harmony Society.
# Comparing with ], both have killed and robbed a lot of innocent people, but one being described as heros and the other being described as gangs.
# ...
(many still to be listed here)
] (]) 06:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
User:222.35.87.148, please read :Quoted from: 拳變餘聞 : 拳匪, 匪, bandits, so in Qing Dynasty time, Boxers were classified as bandits, were to be put down by the then government. There is nothing NPOV about the name bandits (Chinese:匪).<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 09:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
::The Taiping rebels were also considered scum and bandits by the Qing authorities, but you have glorified them as heros on the Taiping Rebellion article. not only that, you continue to rely on wikisource, which is completely unreliable. If you keep up this POV trash i will remove all your edits.] (]) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Arilang, the only sources you have are wikisource, which is not a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, since you yourself added the information to wikisource! and the only other place you are getting you information from is from websites in '''mainland''' china, which is controlled and censored by Communists, so we cannot trust any information you present here. Find a real, credible source, not just in chinese. Otherwise your edits to the aritcle constitute vandalism.] (]) 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
User Дунгане, if you read this google book carefully, you can see that Boxers were referred to as bandits, and their alleged paranormal power was also mentioned.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 23:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
User Дунгане, if you read this article, it is very clear that Boxers were really a bunch of looters and murderers, who would chop women and children into bits and pieces.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 00:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::You do not even grasp what the article about. The article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers. The article is about the response of the Chinese people to western imperialism, which led to the westerners creating an excuse and forminn an "expeditionary" force to seize Beijing, the German Kaiser urged Waldersee to seize as much land as he possibly could, this is not just about the Boxers actions which you keep stating the same thing repeatedly. The Taiping rebels were also considered bandits, yet i do not see you writing about their atrocities and destruction of chinese culture on the taiping rebellion article. redefining the defition of boxer rebellion to a series of looting, arson, and killings, is original research, since the Boxer Rebellion consists of all the military actions of the Expeditionary force and the forces in the legations, not just the Boxers.] (]) 04:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::It is very clear to anyone, that there are two schools of thought here:
*(1) The official Chinese government's view, that "Boxers" were anti-western anti-imperialist patriots.
*(2) Boxers were just gangs of looters, arsonists, murderers, who believe in paranormal power which shield them from the harm of sharp knifes and machine gun bullets.
OK, let's work together in good faith, and have these two schools of thought well presented in this important history article.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 06:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
]
:inb4 some moralfag cries ] because I can hardly care, but honestly, '''''what the fuck am I reading?''''' What does the Chinese government have to do with anything at all? Are they even relevant? I sure as hell hope you're not trying to make a ] argument by linking everything with ''"the evil PRC making up propaganda derp"''. There is nothing in the article at all that is linked with anything governmental; your linking with "government propaganda" is nothing but a bad faith attempt to sway minds in my opinion. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] ]</small> 06:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== Westeners treated chinese christians more savagely than boxers ==
The European westerners saved hoards of food for themselves, and refused to give them to the Chinese christian converts. The Europeans drank champagne while the Chinese christians were forced to subsist with tree bark and leaves.
{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=0lIg-lGwqBoC&pg=PA79&dq=En+Hai+ketteler&hl=en&ei=mETQTPfIH8OblgeNrtCrBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=starving%20chinese%20converts%20tree%20bark%20leaves%20suffer%20most&f=false|title=The savage wars of peace: small wars and the rise of American power|author=Max Boot|year=2003|publisher=Basic Books|location=|page=80|isbn=046500721X|pages=|accessdate=2010-10-31}}
== POV Dispute ==
I'm flagging this as biased due to the section that claims that no Boxers raped anyone (ever), and then goes on to talk about a "rampage of looting and raping of Chinese civilians" by Westerners. Neither section is adequately cited (the sources are not sufficient evidence for the claims made), and frankly, the style in which it was written suggests that a non-native speaker wrote it, which, in this circumstance, given the interest and position of the Chinese government on the issue, undermines its credibility. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The source given for the "no rape" claim is Robert R. Mathisen, who (M.A. Ball State University) is Professor of History and Political Science at Corban College, Oregon. He has absolutely no connection with the chinese government, and the claims about looting and raping are well sourced by the WESTERN authors, did you even look at the citations? not a '''single''' chinese source was used.] (]) 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The source is not the man you mention, but rather a Christian missionary who is cited in his book. If you do look at the source itself, she simply says that she never saw the Chinese commit rape. This single testimony is no solid evidence for claiming at large that "the boxers never raped a single woman." I think that's pretty clear. As for the claims of Western atrocities, I don't doubt them -- my quarrel isn't with the information presented but with the mode of presentation. An encyclopedia ought not to read "xyz went on a killing, looting, and raping rampage against abc" but rather "substantial evidence exists that xyz committed various atrocities against abc". I think the difference in tone betrays the bias in the former phrasing. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== "Orgy of looting" ==
It seems odd to me to have this phrase in quotes but not have it sourced unless the whole section is from the reference at the end. Also the sentence, "Catholic North Cathedral was a storehouse and super market for purchasing loot" annoys me - the words "super market" are just too much of an anachronism for me to be happy with. ] (]) 00:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
* Yes, it should be sourced. It is such a commonly used phrase -- repeated by at least a dozen authors -- that I did not see the need, but I will source it to a reputable book and note that the phrase is used often in many books. And yes, super market is infelictious. I'll change it to a quote "salesroom." There's an extensive literature about the looting of Beijing. Two good wikipedia articles go into the subject in detail. See "William Scott Ament" and "Bishop Favier." Both justify to a certain extent the looting of their subjects, but there is no doubt that widespread looting by many -- probably most -- of the foreigners in Beijing took place. If this section is deemed as lacking scholary perspecive I can greatly expand it and add innumerable eye-witness references. The "Orgy of Looting" in Beijing was a reality. Smallchief 01:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== User:Arilang1234 blatantly removing sourced information and falsely stating that a source is about "art" ==
User:Arilang1234 claims here that
Yet anyone with eyes can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the '''boxer''' war", on is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."
in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either cannot read, or is lying when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a '''reference''' in the information he ] (]) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Its quite obvious Arilang has an agenda to advance. There are absolutely '''zero chinese government''' sources used in this article, yet Arilang is complaining that we are drawing information from the Chinese government "propaganda" department. So since nearly all of the sources used are by western authors with degrees from western universities, how did they magically change into chinese government sources?] (]) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, my apology to User:Дунгане, for making a mistake by claiming Jane E Elliott's book is about art only. But there is one request I would like User:Дунгане to do, please add the page number of the book in your references, so that other editor can check with ease, since that book has about 500 pages.
That said, I would again suggest to User:Дунгане, the three sections
*(1)Imperial Army Muslim Kansu Braves
(The official Chinese name is 甘军)
*(2)Imperial Army Han Troops
*(3)Imperial Army Manchu Bannermen
The above three sections are too bulky, and the structure is too loose, is not of encyclopedic quality, and is very difficult to read.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== Jane E Elliott's book ==
There is one thing I would like to talk about the book, since quite a big part of the book is about Nianhua(Chinese 年画), and Jane Elliott made a lot of observations, and thus made a lot of statements based on her observations. Now, what exactly is Nianhua(Chinese 年画)?
Now, nianhua(Chinese 年画) is a Chinese tradition,a Chinese folk art, which were used by Chinese peasants to paste on their rooms, or front door for decoration purposes, were not meant to be faithful to historical facts in anyway. What I am saying is, how reliable can those nianhua(Chinese 年画) be, in relation to what really happened then, in 1900s?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::She explains which nianhua are accurate, and which are not in the book, if you actually read it. And not all the stuff is about nianhua, there is information she got from other sources, she clearly did not get all the information about Li Hongzhang touring europe and buying weapons from "looking at nianhua".] (]) 02:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
]
::do not try to fool us. This communist poster is '''NOT''' a nianhua. It is a communist style propaganda poster which has NOTHING to do with nianhua made by chinese artists in the 1800s and during the Boxer Rebellion. The Nianhua in the book Elliot talks about are made by artists '''contemporary''' to the Boxers, not funded by the Chinese government. You are insulting our intelligence by posting a communist poster here.] (]) 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::Dr. Sun Yatsen clearly '''praised''' the Boxers for fighting western imperialists. He is the founding father of the Republic of China. Do not try to distort history, Arilang.
{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=I0kvN9LDHP0C&pg=PA151&dq=yangcun+battle&hl=en&ei=cAa2TIO1K8P48Aa595SIBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yangcun%20battle&f=false|title=Critical Zone 3: A Forum of Chinese and Western Knowledge|author=Douglas Kerr|year=2009|publisher=Hong Kong University Press|location=|page=151|isbn=9622098576|pages=|accessdate=2010-6-28}}
== No personal attack ==
User:Дунгане, please read ], and ], and ].
User:Дунгане has accused me of the following "sins", which I believe, are personal attacks. I would advice User:Дунгане stop doing it.
*(1)"The Taiping rebels were also considered bandits, yet i do not see you writing about their atrocities and destruction of chinese culture on the taiping rebellion article."
*(2)Arilang, the only sources you have are wikisource, which is not a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, since you yourself added the information to wikisource! and the only other place you are getting you information from is from websites in mainland china, which is controlled and censored by Communists, so we cannot trust any information you present here. Find a real, credible source, not just in chinese. Otherwise your edits to the aritcle constitutevandalism.Дунгане (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
*(3)The Taiping rebels were also considered scum and bandits by the Qing authorities, but you have glorified them as heros on the Taiping Rebellion article. not only that, you continue to rely on wikisource, which is completely unreliable. If you keep up this POV trash i will remove all your edits.Дунгане (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:悲剧， Do you even know what a personal attack is? --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] ]</small> 06:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== Apparently Arilang has not read wikipedia policy ==
===Arilang frequently insults non chinese ethnic groups and uses wikipedia as a political platform===
::take a look at his language regarding Manchus on ], and a look at the intro in his "Sand box" ]
::Arilang's language was absolutely appalling, accusing manchus of being barbarians, and he clearly shows the same intent here. he does not intend to add anything useful to wikipedia, only hateful insults.
::In addition, he seems to think that . ] (]) 03:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== Let's take a look to Arilang1234's earliest "contributions", to this article ==
Among Arilang's earlist edits in 2008- ] (]) 05:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Дунгане, this talk page can only be used to discuss ways to improve the article, not a place to discuss what I did or what I didn't do. Please read ], and ].<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 05:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::you haven't offered anything to contribute, the only thing you have added to the article is insulting descriptions and revisionist history, '''no''' western historian describes the Boxer rebellions '''just''' as a series of "killings, lootings, and arson", instead, you keep avoiding the arguments that i put out on the talk page, and keep copy and pasting massive amounts of information from random mainland china websites onto the talk page. Stop ducking my arguments, and answer '''all''' of them before claiming you have concensus to change the article. Strange how you said- - yet i see no one on this talk page execept you who agreed to change the lead.] (]) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::In addition, you '''still''' don't understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to your logic, all references to British should be remove from the ] article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war.] (]) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::
::''Bawwwwwwwwww'', Arilang, ''bawwwwwwwww''. Who is the one crying foul and accusing other editors of malice, when you are the one who is ignoring criticisms against your own wrongdoing? --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] ]</small> 06:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::To answer some of your false accusations: "you haven't offered anything to contribute, the only thing you have added to the article is insulting descriptions and revisionist history, no western historian describes the Boxer rebellions just as a series of "killings, lootings, and arson", instead, you keep avoiding the arguments that i put out on the talk page, and keep copy and pasting massive amounts of information from random mainland china websites onto the talk page."
OK,
(1) My original statement is : "It is very clear to anyone, that there are two schools of thought here:(1) The official Chinese government's view, that "Boxers" were anti-western anti-imperialist patriots.(2) Boxers were just gangs of looters, arsonists, murderers, who believe in paranormal power which shield them from the harm of sharp knifes and machine gun bullets."
]
== Lynn Bodin ==
Let us look at this book The Boxer Rebellion author：Lynn Bodin,http://books.google.com/books?id=2YleP1OP4HsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Boxer+Rebellions&hl=zh-CN&ei=yVbST
{{cquote|The Boxers preached extermination or expulsion of "foreign devils" through ritual use of the martial arts and traditional Chinese weapons. They preached that "true believers" would be immune to Western weapons. To the Boxers, their enemies were "devils": all foreigners were "first-class devils", Chinese Christian converts were "second-calss devils", and those who worked for foreigners were "third-class devils".(Lynn Bodin Page4 The Boxer Rebellion)}}
Now, according Lynn Bodin, " extermination" would mean killing, all foreigners, all Chinese Christian converts, and all Chinese who worked for them were to be killed, to be exterminated as "devils", that means these were not humans, they were devils. This is extreme to the most. These were the true color of the Boxers. And if we look at the lead section of this article again: "The uprising took place in response to imperialist expansion (into China) involving European opium traders, political invasion, economic manipulation, and missionaryevangelism. "
Now, presume that you are a freshman at a university, and you happen to have read Lynn Bodin's book, at the same time, you have also read Boxer Rebellion on Misplaced Pages. Now, which story are you going to believe, Wlkipedia, or Lynn Bodin?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 07:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::Let me quote Lynn Bodin(Page4 The Boxer Rebellion) again:
{{cquote|Superstitions and magical rituals accompanied the Boxer movement. Incantations were used to induce trance-like states among their followers. Some recruiting demonstrations included a shaman shooting a musket (loaded with a blank charge) at a "faitful" folower, who was not affected.)}}
::According to Bodin, Boxers were cheaters, fraudsters, street show people who went into trance, in order to con others. Now if we read the Misplaced Pages lead section again:"In 1898 local organizations emerged in Shandong as the result of the anti-imperialist expansion, as well as other internal issues such as the state fiscal crisis and natural disasters." OK, which side of the story are we going to believe, Bodin, or Misplaced Pages?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 07:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== Peter Harrington,Michael Perry ==
Peking 1900: the Boxer rebellion 作者：Peter Harrington,Michael Perry
{{cquote|Simply put, the Boxer outbreak in North China, in the summer of 1900, can be attributed directly to Chinese hatred of foreigners and foreign interference in their country.....they were all blamed on "foreign devils" who were encroaching on China in increasing numbers. Peking 1900: the Boxer rebellion Page 7.}}
::OK, Harrington and Perry stated that foreigners were hated as devils, not human beings. Why is it that our Misplaced Pages article did not mention this important statement? Boxers were out there to hate, to murder, to burn, to exterminate "Devils", not human beings. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 08:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== Albert Feuerwerker,S. Cheng ==
Chinese Communist studies of modern Chinese history By :Albert Feuerwerker,S. Cheng Page:113
{{cquote|The Boxer movement, say the mainland historians, was both an uprising of the exploited peasantry against the feudal ruling class and a popular anti imperialist movement directed against the foreign powers who had begun to "carve up China" after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95.}}
OK, to all other users, does not this look familiar? Oh, I see, this looks like the lead of our own Boxer Rebellion article. Funny though, don't you think? Why is it the two versions do look similar, is it a coincident, or is it not? I wonder.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 08:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
{{cquote| Let us quote Feuerwerker and Cheng again, Page 113.
Mao Tse-tung has stated that...the "principal contradiction" in modern Chinese history is that between imperialism and the Chinese nation.The Empress Dowager's war can, therefore be interpreted as a positive response of the court to the imperialist threat to the existence of the dynasty, a decision that was made under impact of a popular anti-imperialist movement. Again, the Boxers failed because they lacked proletarian leadership and organization, and because of savage repression by the imperialist armies who occupied North China.}}
:::OK, to all the editors who are interested in this article. This is exactly the conclusion a reader would reach after reading our Boxer Rebellion article. Funny though, you may ask, why is it that Mao Tse-tung, dead since 1976, and yet still can influence our Misplaced Pages editors, so much so that Mao's views are reflected in Misplaced Pages history article. Can anyone tell me the reason?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>[[User
talk:Arilang1234|''talk'']]</sup></font></b></i> 09:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
William Scott Ament and the Boxer Rebellion: heroism, hubris and the " Ideal Missionary"
{{cquote| Page 7: Their rituals included whirling and twiling of swords, violent prostrations, and incantations to Taoist and Buddhist saints. When a supplicant chanted the correct incantation, the god descended and possessed his body, and with much frothing at the mouth, he acquired invulnerability and superhuman skills with swords and lance...The supernatural gave the Boxers much of their appeal. thousands testified they had seen boxers withstand blowsn of cannon, rifle ball, and knife. On one ocassion a man stood infront of a loaded cannon to demonstrate his invulnerability. When the cannon was fired, he was cut in two.}}
{{cquote|Page 8: The Boxers' posters and broadsheets appeared everywhere in northern China. A sample gives the flavor of their appeal to a beleaguered people: Foreign devils come with their teaching, and converts to Christianity, Roman Catholic and Protestant, have become numerous. These are without human relations, but being most cunning have attracted all the greedy and covetous as converts, and to an unlimited degree they have praticed oppression, until every good official has been corrupted, and, covetous of foreign wealth, has become their servant...China yet yet regards them as barbarians of whom God disapproved, and He is sending down spirits and genii for their destruction...They will burn down the foreign buildings and restore the temples. Foreign goods of every variety they will destroy. They will extripate the evil demons, and establish right teaching--the honor of the spirits of the sages; they will cause their sacred teaching to flourish.}}
OK, foreigners were seen as devils, demons, and barbarians, were to be destroyed, or exterminated. " Foreign goods of every variety they will destroy. " Well, regardless of who the owners were, everything foreign were destroyed. These were the real boxers. Or were they? I wonder.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 11:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
{{cquote|Page 9: The Ching or Manchu dynasty which had governed China for more than 250 years repressed secret societies and, also, as possible sources of sedition, the Buddist and Taoist priesthoods...Manchus were an ethnic minority conquering and ruling China and they wanted no nationalist banners raised by ethnic Han Chinese to threaten their rule. The pigtail worn by Chinese men was a symbol of their subjugation by the Manchus.}}
According to Thompson, the ruling class, the Manchus, would not like to see the Boxers, who were mostly Han Chinese, to become out of control and powerful, and maybe one day so powerful that they might become a threat to the Manchu empire. A good point. Can this be included in the lead section? I wonder.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 12:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== Xiaorong Han of Butler University ==
Chinese discourses on the peasant, 1900-1949 By：Xiaorong Han(Dr. Xiaorong Han - Associate Professor, Department of History and Anthropology, Butler University)
{{cquote|Page 20: Sun Yat-sen, although praising the Boxers for their spirit of resistance, called the Boxers "bandits," as many educated Chinese of his generation did...}}
{{cquote|Page 21:...almost all educated Chinese who supported the Boxers during the Boxer Rebellion admitted that the Boxers were indeed ignorant. Chen Shaobai, the editor-in-chief of the Zhongguo Ribao, the mouthpiece of the Xingzhonghui, although refusing to call the Boxers "bandits", nevertheless believed that they had no political consciousness. The editor of Guominbao, a newspaper run by Chinese students in Japan, held that Boxer Rebellion reflected the xenophobia of the ignorant and stubborn people of the interior area, adding as a side note that such xenophobia could be transformed into a moving force for independence.}}
{{cquote|As late as 1923, ] still called the Boxers "boxer bandits" and denounced the masses for their indefference. From 1923 to 1925, he continually mocked the Boxers for their belief that canned meat was made of Chinese children killed by "foreign devils"...}}
OK, ] and ] called the Boxers "bandits", and educated Chinese called them
*(1) xenophobia
*(2) ignorant
*(3) had no political consciousness.
*(4) belief in the story that "foreign devils" killed Chinese children and turned them into canned meat.
But the Misplaced Pages current version of Boxer Rebellion painted the Boxers as patriotic as well as anti-imperialist. Now I am beginning to wonder. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 04:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
::Lu Xun was prominent in the ], which advocated completely destroying chinese Culture, which was '''exactly''' what Mao Zedong did in the ]. Who says his opinion matters? Did he ever hold political office? '''NO'''
::one of the Generals who fought the foreigners in the Boxer Rebellion, ], became a high ranking ] official and even became brother to ]. Ma Fuxiang fought at ], side by side with Boxers against foreigners, and Chiang Kaishek and he .
::Ma Fuxiang was a general in the Boxer War, against the western side, and he was a member of the KMT, Lu Xun was not, Ma Fuxiang commanded massive military forces in China, he is more signifigant thatn Lu Xun.
::White Christian european westerners often accused Jews of ''']''' a false accusation that Jews cooked the blood of christian children into matzo bread. I do not see how white europeans are more civilized than chinese.
::in addition, you have often stated that westerners and everything about them is superior to China. If that is true, how did the Ming dynasty defeat the Portuguese navy with cannons at ]? how were dutch defeated by chinese at ]? How did the ] defeat British at ], and Chinese defeated the french at ]?] (]) 05:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
::In the Boxer rebellion, one of the victories by Chinese forces which smashed the eight nation alliance was ], that was clear chinese victory, the British Admiral Seymour was arrogant and thought chinese were inferior, but he was beaten.] (]) 05:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:: User Дунгане, I know our opinions differ a lot, well I also hope that through cooperation, we can improve this article for the benefit of everyday readers.
Books by professor Xiaorong Han, Larry Clinton Thompson, Albert Feuerwerker, S. Cheng, Peter Harrington,Michael Perry, Lynn Bodin, are good source for this article, and I cannot see any reason why they are not being used.
Just to answer some of your points:
*(1) ] and ] were both quoted by professor Han, for calling Boxers as "bandits", and whether ] was holding office or not is irrelevant.
*(2) I had pointed out quite a few times already, let me say it again, it is OK to include "Muslim Army" in this article, but at the moment, the section is too messy, and need a good clean up.
*(3) Please read ] and ], these two are very good wikipedia articles which have very high standard.
*(4) Please stop throwing racist mud at me, it wouldn't work.
*(5) Quote: you have often stated that westerners and everything about them is superior to China. Unquoted. When and where on Misplaced Pages had I ever made this kind of statement? <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 11:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not used racial, sexual, political, or other epithets, i have not used affilication ad hominem attacks, i have not linked to axternal attacks, i have not threatened to do legal action, or violence, or vandalism, and i have not accused Arilang '''without''' evidence, I have submitted plently of evidence that Arilang1234 is racist against Manchus.] (]) 06:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
:Seconded. I think Arilang should really have a good think about his own arguments. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] ]</small> 06:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
== Response to Arilang's copy and paste and speculation ==
The Qing Manchu court agreed to behead Yuxian, the '''Manchu''' governor responsible for Taiyuan massacre, and it also handed over the '''Manchu''' captain En Hai to the foreigners to be beheaded, but they '''refused''' to execute General ], who was '''Han''', and responsible for a lot of the killings of foreigners around Beijing, Dong even had the Japanese chancellors heart cut out of his body, but he was not punished, neither were the other muslim Generals who also killed foreigners. Your accusations that Qing was unfair are unfounded and not based in any fact. Lets remember, that one of the Generals who fought the foreigners in the Boxer Rebellion, ], became a high ranking ] official and even became brother to ]. Ma Fuxiang fought at ], side by side with Boxers against foreigners, and Chiang Kaishek and he .
Arilang completely ignores the Fact that europeans like this physician, and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany claimed Chinese were less than human, and Arilang goes onto a rant about "devils".
Professor Douglas Kerr wrote in his book, "Critical Zone 3: A Forum of Chinese and Western Knowledge", which was based on collaboration among scholars from Hong Kong, mainland China, the United States, and Europe.
In the book, it says,
], one of the most '''corrupt''' Manchu princes, was '''opposed''' to the Boxers. he was replaced with the Manchu ], who was pro boxer.
According to international law, invading another countries territory without authorization is illegal. The western powers were clearly the aggressors.] (]) 19:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
=== User:Arilang1234's position on this article is almost exactly the same as White supremacist Arthur Kemp ===
], a well known ] who doubts the ], has a position on the Boxer Rebellion almost identical to that of User:Arilang1234. He published a book - "March of the Titans: a history of the White Race", which discusses the Boxer rebellion in Chapter 45. book.] (]) 01:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
::(note, i am using this example to refute User:Arilang1234's ] , in .] (]) 01:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Apart from your conflict with Arilang, that material does raise an important question. I imagine that what passes for fringe white supremacist attitudes now would be pretty close to the mainstream views of the contemporary Europeans and Americans of the 19th century. Right now the "depictions" section doesn't say at all how the countrymen of the ostensibly targeted foreigners and their academics and press portrayed the Boxers during and after the uprising; could they have reacted something like how Kemp did? ] (]) 01:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:::It doesn't so much where people's views come from, as Misplaced Pages isn't a blog or forum. What counts is what sources and citations are provided. Controversial text without supporting citations can be removed. ] (]) 16:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
== Lead section's controversial text ==
Let us have a good look at those controversial text at the lead section:
{{cquote|The Boxer Rebellion, also called The Boxer Uprising by some historians or the Righteous Harmony Society Movement in northern China, was anti-colonialist, anti-Christian movement by the "Righteous Harmony Society" (义和团 - Yìhétuán), or "Righteous Fists of Harmony" or "Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists" (known as "Boxers" in English), in China between 1898 and 1901.}}
Page 21 of "Chinese discourses on the peasant, 1900-1949" By：Xiaorong Han
{{cquote|...almost all educated Chinese who supported the Boxers during the Boxer Rebellion admitted that the Boxers were indeed ignorant. Chen Shaobai, the editor-in-chief of the Zhongguo Ribao, the mouthpiece of the Xingzhonghui, although refusing to call the Boxers "bandits", nevertheless believed that they had no political consciousness.}}
OK, according to professor Han, Boxers were xenophobic ignorant bandits who had no political consciousness, yet the lead section the Boxers were branded as "anti-colonialist, anti-Christian ", which is a highly social political term. One might ask, could ignorant peasant bandits ever understand the meaning of "anti-colonialist" ? <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:I think anyone can understand foreigners arriving and pushing their weight around, and be against it. (] ]) 02:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
::The Boxers received massive support from nearly the entire Chinese population. Dowager Empress Cixi herself said- "Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?"
{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jVESdBSMasMC&pg=PA289&dq=Perhaps+their+magic+is+not+to+be+relied+upon:+but+can+we+not+rely+on+the+hearts+and+minds+of+the+people%3F+Today+China+is+extremely+weak.+We+have+only+the+people's+hearts+and+minds+to+depend+upon.+If+we+cast+them+aside+and+lose+the+people's+hearts,+what+can+we&hl=en&ei=sRa2TOuXDsG88gaL9azjCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Perhaps%20their%20magic%20is%20not%20to%20be%20relied%20upon%3A%20but%20can%20we%20not%20rely%20on%20the%20hearts%20and%20minds%20of%20the%20people%3F%20Today%20China%20is%20extremely%20weak.%20We%20have%20only%20the%20people's%20hearts%20and%20minds%20to%20depend%20upon.%20If%20we%20cast%20them%20aside%20and%20lose%20the%20people's%20hearts%2C%20what%20can%20we&f=false|title=The origins of the Boxer Uprising|author=Joseph Esherick|year=1988|publisher=University of California Press|location=|page=289|isbn=0520064593|pages=|accessdate=2010-6-28}}
::the German Kaiser Wilhelm II provoked the Boxers first, encouraging his German imperialist army to commit violence on Chinese by making the "iron fist of Germany heavy on their necks" He used ] fears to
::The real "leader" of the Boxers was not Cao Futian, it was ], who had real anti imperialist aims and wanted to drive western powers out of China.
::] was a Muslim Boxer, and he felt insulted when white westerners claim they were superior to chinese, he often challenged them to fights to defeat them to prove that they were wrong. Proffesor Dru C. Gladney] (]) 02:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
::User:Дунгане:
*(1) Quote:"The Boxers received massive support from nearly the entire Chinese population. " Unquoted. The fact that "Boxers were xenophobic ignorant bandits who had no political consciousness" remains the same, which can be back up by books written by Han, Thompson, Feuerwerker,Cheng, Harrington,Perry, and Bodin. Boxers could be supported by 100% Chinese or 1% Chinese, it doesn't change anything. Esherick is a reliable source, so are Han, Thompson, Feuerwerker,Cheng, Harrington,Perry, and Bodin. And on page 290 of "The origins of the Boxer Uprising" by Esherick, no mention of Boxers being "anti-colonialist" can be found. If no supporting citations can be found, I suggest the term "anti-colonialist" to be removed from this article, so that everyday readers would not get confused.
*(2) Quote:"German Kaiser Wilhelm II provoked the Boxers first" Unquoted. That may be true, again, still, it would not change anything. Being provoked first would never automatically turn "xenophobic ignorant bandits" into saints.
*(3) Quote:"] was a Muslim Boxer", User:Дунгане, be real, whether it is 1900, or 2010, being a Muslim, do not give you the right to chop off people's head, nor to burn down buildings, which were exactly what Boxers did in 1900. Bandits were bandits, looters were looters, no make no difference when the bandits were Muslim or not. You should know better than that.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 04:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think everyday readers will be confused, since they will just think it means they were opposed against the colonialists, which they were. However, it could be phrased better.
:::Who was proved first is a matter of record, not an excuse for their behaviour. (] ]) 17:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Arilang, look at ]. Muslims are forbidden to worship idols and do not believe and polytheist rituals, the Boxers were polytheist and believe in spirits and idols, Wang did not join because he "helieved" in their superstition, he joined, like many other Boxers did, to fight imperialist powers, descriptions of him, by people like Proffesor Dru C Gladney make it clear that he was against arrogant western imperialists, because they insulted chinese and stole land.] (]) 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
== User:Arilang1234 has a serious problem with grasping the concept of "POV" ==
Author Bruce A. Elleman, . Assistant Professor of History, Texas Christian University, says
James Louis Hevia says
David D. Buck is a professor emeritus of Chinese history at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a former editor of the Journal of Asian Studiesm, and he says,
Author Kazuko Ono says,
I urge Arilang to stop blatanly inserting POV into the article, and using his own actions to judge on whether something is '''right''' or not, i do not see the Misplaced Pages article on the ] saying, "It was a horrific and bloody mass racist muder", despite the fact that it was, Misplaced Pages maintains '''neutral''' POV and does not say so. therefore, criticizing the Boxers for doing '''wrong''' has no place here.] (]) 04:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Author Kazuko Ono also says- ] (]) 05:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
::Editors are not here "to judge on whether something is right or not", we are here to add content with supportive citations. You are welcome to add content such as book(1) book(2) and book(3) said Boxers were XXX and XXX, no one would stop you when the content is properly cited. A win win situation can be achieved, for example, professor so and so called them "Bandits", other professors called them "anti-imperialists", as long as the article is well structured. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 05:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
::You cannot say that they are '''bandits''' in the lead, because the secondary sources by proffesor Han and the others do '''not'' describe them as bandits, they say that people like '''Lu Xun''' describe them as bandits, i can put anti imperialist in the lead, because the secondary sources i used by Professor Elleman say directly that they were anti imperialist, Lu Xun is a ], and you need to put in another section that is was Lu Xun's or whoever's opinion that the Boxers were bandits.] (]) 05:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
::See wikipedia Since Proffesor Han said that it was '''Lu Xun''' who said that they were bandits, you can only put in the article that "Lu Xun said the Boxers were XXX", not that the "Boxers were XXX". IF proffesor han or another proffesor with a PHD '''themselves''' described them as bandits, then it can be put alongside anti imperialist, but you cannot remove the "anti imperilaist" part.] (]) 05:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hou Yijie DOB 4/1938, researcher at ], specialised in end of ] history, author of the book 「神拳」義和團的真面目 "The true face of the Spirit possessed boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan."
===The true face of the Spirit possessed boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan===
====The killing of Hui Chinese====
Page 133/144
Beside killing Han Chinese who were either Christians and non-Christians, Chinese who were of ] ethnicity were also targeted. On 20/6/1900, Qian Men(Front Door) mosque was burned down, so were houses belong to Hui muslims.
On 13/7/1900, 3000 Boxers attacked 200 plus families at Sandong Province Hai Fong county, 80% of the houses were burned down, and 300 plus people, including children were murdered.
A mosque at Tianjin Mu Jia Village was torched.<ref>{{cite book|last=侯宜傑|first=|title=The true face of the Spirit Possessed Boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan「神拳」義和團的真面目 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3FP92a7ACSQC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E6%8B%B3%E5%8C%AA%E5%8F%98%E4%B9%B1%E7%BA%AA%E4%BA%8B&source=bl&ots=WTHeBzFt_9&sig=OmXRWLLoRBxXfL4qlPk8WNGpAEI&hl=zh-CN&ei=7X3WTLO7OIiKvgOH_JW4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CD8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E6%8B%B3%E5%8C%AA%E5%8F%98%E4%B9%B1%E7%BA%AA%E4%BA%8B&f=false|date=2010/10/08|publisher=秀威資訊科技股份有限公司|isbn=ISBN 13 ／9789862215319|pages=133/134}}</ref>
::Arilang, it is SOURCED in the article that the Boxers took orders from the Hui Kansu Braves army, the muslim army killed ever more foreigners after the Boxers left Beijing, they hated foreigners as much as the Boxers.
::
::
::
::] (]) 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
::If you read "The true face of the Spirit Possessed Boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan", (Can you read Chinese?), Yi Ho Tuan was not a homogeneous group, far from it, there were many groups and there was one leader for each group, and all the groups were independent from each other. And so called "popular supported by the people" was just lies, in reality, the people were afraid of them because they were robbers, bandits, and murderers. I know you want to advocate your ] ethnic point of view, but you have come to the wrong place. If you can read Chinese, I suggest you go to read 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and of course, 「神拳」義和團的真面目 , by 侯宜傑.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 04:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
====The Yi Ho Tuan Incantations====
*(1)Incantation to invite the coming of spirits.
*(2)Incantation to provide protection against spear and fire.
*(3)Incantation to provide protection against any harm.
The boxers claimed that once these incantations were chanted, Chinese spirits would descend to offer protection, so that cannon fire or gun shots would not harm the human body.<ref>{{cite book|last=侯宜傑|first=|title=「神拳」義和團的真面目 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3FP92a7ACSQC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E6%8B%B3%E5%8C%AA%E5%8F%98%E4%B9%B1%E7%BA%AA%E4%BA%8B&source=bl&ots=WTHeBzFt_9&sig=OmXRWLLoRBxXfL4qlPk8WNGpAEI&hl=zh-CN&ei=7X3WTLO7OIiKvgOH_JW4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CD8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E6%8B%B3%E5%8C%AA%E5%8F%98%E4%B9%B1%E7%BA%AA%E4%BA%8B&f=false|date=2010/10/08 |publisher= 秀威資訊科技股份有限公司 |isbn=13 ／9789862215319|page=151}}</ref>
====Spreading rumors to attack Christianity ====
Page 153.
The Boxers wrote poetry to spread rumors against Christianity:
Infidel, they don't worship ancestors,<br>
No morality,<br>
their children come from incest,<br>
If you don't believe, have a look,<br>
these devils all have blue eyes.<br>
Why no rain, earth is scorched,<br>
Because the churches upset the heaven.<br>
不信神 忘祖先
男無倫 女行姦
鬼孩俱是子母產
如不信 仔細觀
鬼子眼珠俱發藍
天無雨 地焦旱
全是教堂止住天
== I would like an explanation from Arilang inserting "undefined", which caused broken links all over the article ==
User:Arilang1234 has added the word "undefined" across the article, breaking numerous links and causing massive mispelling, not only once, but '''twice''' and If you continue with that, it will be considered vandalism.] (]) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your info, well, I think my PC had been planted with some sort of bugs, because I did not, and had no reason to do so. The only thing I can do is to reformat my hard drive and reinstall XP. Thanks again Дунгане.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
== User:Arilang1234 falsely accuses me of Communist propaganda, but he himself uses communist sources. ==
the ], which Arilang quotes, is run by the Communist party of China and can be regarded as little more than a propaganda arm for the Communist party.
Also, Arilang1235 alleges that Communist posters are nianhua. If we look at the site he presented, , it explains nianhua were drawn by peasants for lunar new year and spring festival.
Last time i checked, the Communists '''banned''' spring festival during the ], allegedly because it was '''feudal''', and the Communists replaced Chinese lunar new year with the Western calender and New Year.
Not only that, Arilang is using mainland chinese websites and tons of other Communists sources, and accuses me of using communist sources, when all my sources are from westsern proffesors with PHD degrees.] (]) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
:: Please, tell me one simple thing, User:Дунгане, can you read Chinese? If you can, my advice is, please read 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, these are very important source that nobody can ignore.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
::User:Дунгане, all I am saying is, Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic, because there are two versions of it:
*(1) Version one: The Chinese government official version, in that version, Boxers were patriotic anti-imperialists hero.
*(2) Version two: According to independent historians (Chinese and non-Chinese, including ]), Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists.
I have read a lot of assays, books, including 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目 "The true face of the Spirit possessed boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan. I have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic.
About your statement " Arilang is using mainland chinese websites and tons of other Communists sources", User:Дунгане, time to grow up, don't you know that not all the mainland websites are pro-government, have you heard of ]? And "accuses me of using communist sources, when all my sources are from westsern proffesors with PHD degrees." User:Дунгане, don't you know that there are western people(scholars and non-scholars) pushing pro communist China's view points, have you never heard of ] ?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 08:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
::I challenge you to name a '''single author''' of a source that i used, that is pro communist in any way. All of them have '''no affiliation''' to the Communist party of China.] (]) 02:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Translation: Because of support, and manipulation by ],], Boxers Rebellion had developed into a terrible disaster in China. Governments have responsibility to maintain normal social orders, and to offer protection for people's lives and property. The ] could not protect foreigners and it's own people against the violent acts of the Boxers, is the sign that it was a rotten authority.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/Content_Archive.cfm?Channel=br&Path=3625624052/15br1a.cfm|title=揭開義和團及反帝反封建真面目|last=袁偉時|date=2006-04-16|publisher=YZZK|accessdate=10 November 2010}}</ref>
::If we take a look at the ] article, which is sourced by western proffesors with PHD degrees, we will see that all of Yuan Weishi's allegations are '''false'''. Ronglu was pro foreign, and deliberately sabotaged the chinese army, and even ordered General Nie Shicheng to kill Boxers and protect foreigners, Ronglu denied artillery to the muslim army besieging the legations, Ronglu sent food to the foreigners in the legations, and allowed Prince Qing to attack the Kansu Braves and Boxers.
::Not only that, Proffesor Yuan fails to explain why the Qing authority is obligated to protect '''invading foreign forces''' when they illegally entered chinese territory, killed chinese civilians, and Europeans in the legations also hoarded food for themselves and refused to give them to chinese christians. Foreign christians missionaries '''seized''' land from innocent chinese peasants, the Qing court was not obligated to protect thieves like these missionaries.
::Ronglu also ordered General Nie to '''protect''' the railway. As a result, the invading western army was able to '''escape''' the Kansu Braves after the ] by jumping on a train and fleeing. Since when is a country obligated to allow its enemies to travel freely?
::Unlike western proffesors, people from mainland China like ], who are proffesors of '''philosophy''', not of '''history''' are highly emotional, and the extreme POV language they use puts to question the reliability of their works.] (]) 21:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
:::It appears you are suggesting Western professors are impartial while Chinese professors are not. I hope you can support such a generalization with hard evidence. By the way, philosophy is a much more cerebral subject than history and is much closer to the domain of objective analysis. ] (]) 23:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
===User:Дунгане, can you read Chinese?===
On your question:"Not only that, Proffesor Yuan fails to explain why the Qing authority is obligated to protect '''invading foreign forces'''when they illegally entered chinese territory, killed chinese civilians," if you can read Chinese, Yuan has explained it very well in "揭開義和團及反帝反封建真面目", published on YZZK.com. I would like to ask user:Дунгане one more time, "Can you read Chinese?"
On your statement:"Unlike western proffesors, people from mainland China like], who are proffesors of '''philosophy''', not of'''history''' are highly emotional, and the extreme POV language they use puts to question the reliability of their works.", well, user:Дунгане, who do you think you are, to attack professor ], calling him "highly emotional"?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
===Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before===
User:Arilang1234 has inserted . saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against , not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang I put the wikisource article through google translate in the link, so everyone can read it, and see that Arilang1234 either cannot read what , since he created it, or is just flat out lying. I don't accuse people of lying lightly, but it appears in this case that Arilang1234 deliberately misrepresented sources.] (]) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
== According to Arilang, Leo Tolstoy and Mark Twain are Communist propaganda activists ==
The Russian writer ] praised the Boxers, and called western atrocities against Chinese civilians during the Boxer rebellion "Christian brutality". He died in 1910, 11 years before the Chinese communist party was founded. According to Arilang1234, he works for the Chinese communist party's propaganda organs since he praises the Boxers......
{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=k1_iAAAAMAAJ&q=he+praised+the+Chinese+for+their+heroic+patience.+When+he+learned+about+the+%22orgy+of+murder,+raping,+and+looting%22+committed+by+the+Western+powers+in+quelling+the+Boxer+rebellion,+he+raged+against+the+brutality+of+the+Christians&dq=he+praised+the+Chinese+for+their+heroic+patience.+When+he+learned+about+the+%22orgy+of+murder,+raping,+and+looting%22+committed+by+the+Western+powers+in+quelling+the+Boxer+rebellion,+he+raged+against+the+brutality+of+the+Christians&hl=en&ei=HFHQTMngK8KqlAeQ_oCiBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA|title=The Russian review, Volume 19|author=William Henry Chamberlin, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Ohio State University|year=1960|publisher=Blackwell|location=|page=115|isbn=|pages=|accessdate=2010-10-31}}
{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=MFtDxmZVB7gC&pg=PA3&dq=tolstoy+boxer+rebellion&hl=en&ei=t1DQTLz9HYX7lwfBofHiBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tolstoy%20boxer%20rebellion&f=false|title=An age of progress?: clashing twentieth-century global forces|author=Walter G. Moss|year=2008|publisher=Anthem Press|location=|page=3|isbn=1843313014|pages=|accessdate=2010-10-31}}
], a famous American author, also praised the Boxers for wanting to expel foreigners from China.
According to Arilang, Mark Twain to is somehow working for the propaganda organs of the Communist party, who magically traveled back in time to convince Twain to write communist propaganda decades before the Communist party was founded.] (]) 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Mark Twain was also involved in the ], in which Twain criticized the imperialist Christian missionaries for stealing land from innocent chinese peasants. According to Arilang, this makes Twain a Chinese communist party member.] (]) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
===One more time, can you read Chinese?===
User:Дунгане, I am asking you one more time, Can You Read Chinese? Just a simple question, and I am still waiting for a reply.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 02:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::I can read, and no, wikipedia guidelines do not require me to take mandatory reading assignments from you. Telling me to read decades old books isn't going to help improve the article.] (]) 02:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::Ok, now I know that you can read Chinese, then 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, 「神拳」義和團的真面目, all these articles, and books, content very important information on Boxers, they are not just "decades old books", these books, and articles, were often quoted, and used as reference books by Chinese scholars such as ], 侯宜傑(中国社会科学院研究员), 张鸣教授(中国人民大学政治学系主任), plus others. I know that there are two schools of thoughts on this controversial topic, and I have never said anything like "only one school of thought is allowed on wikipedia". Now that I know User:Дунгане can read Chinese, and why is it that he(or she) just refuse to read them, so that he(or she) can learn more about the real Boxers? And ] has written an article called 揭開義和團及反帝反封建真面目 on YZZK.com, http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/Content_Archive.cfm?Channel=br&Path=3625624052/15br1a.cfm, and why is it that User:Дунгане simply refuse to read it, instead, calling ] "highly emotional" . Well, emotional or not, "Yuan Weishi is a professor of philosophy at Zhongshan University in Guangzhou, China.", and his view points are to be respected, especially when we are editing this very important article, The Boxer Rebellion. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 06:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
=== Third opinion ===
; Third opinion by ResidentAnthropologist: ....
] I am Just going to say based on my observations of ya'll are ready for ] or Marriage. Humor aside, I am not an expert in Chinese history an Do think a some formal ] might be advisable as I think this is Outside WP:3O of what can handle. I am going to leave it Up in case of some one else want there want to Give a better more informed opinion. ] (]) 04:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
== The Kuomintang has also called Western Christian missionaries imperialist ==
The Kuomintang ] attacked western christians and Chinese christians as imperialists in the 1920's and 1930's
{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tCA9AAAAIAAJ&dq=accused+chiang+feudal&q=muslim#v=snippet&q=missionary%20crowd&f=false|title=Region and nation: the Kwangsi clique in Chinese politics, 1925-1937|author=Diana Lary|year=1974|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=|page=99|isbn=0521202043|pages=|accessdate=2010-06-28}}
During the Northern Expedition, the Kuomintang incited anti-foreign, anti-western sentiment. Portraits of Sun Yatsen replaced the crucifix in several churches, KMT posters proclaimed- "Jesus Christ is dead. Why not worship something alive such as Nationalism?". Foreign missionaries were attacked and anti foreign riots broke out.
{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=YkREps9oGR4C&dq=chiang+kai-shek+democracy&q=emocracy+absolutely+impossible#v=onepage&q=portraits%20crucifixes%20anti&f=false|title=Chiang Kai Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost|author=Jonathan Fenby|year=2005|publisher=Carroll & Graf Publishers|location=|page=126|isbn=0786714840|pages=|accessdate=2010-06-28}}
Arilang1234 is saying that only the Communist party is against western, christian missionaries. This is false. the Kuomintang was equally opposed to them. By the way, i have already noted that Arilang1234 criticizing the position of my sources of being similar to Communist party position as an ad hominem attack, which is not allowed on wikipedia. This conversation should have been over already, i did not use a single communist source, yet Arilang continues to claim that i am using communist party sources. If you don't believe me, check the article yourself to see if i added communist sources, it would be clear that Arilang1234 is not telling the truth.] (]) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
== User:Arilang1234 pushing blatant POV, violating concensus, and refuses to talk out disputes with me before editing the article ==
I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.
::Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his
::Arilang violates by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for
::Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia-
::I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.
::User:Arilang1234 does '''not understand''' that wikisource is '''not''' a reliable source- . Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has '''lied''' about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against , not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang
::Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem ] attacks, was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".
::in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a '''reference''' in the information he
::User:Arilang1234 claims here that
::Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the '''boxer''' war", on is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."
::In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling ] Emperor , just because he was a ].
::Arilang thinks its okay to say , which is clear ] against Manchus.
::Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to specifically of perputrating atrocities.
::Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the ] article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war
::] (]) 04:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I've taken some time to reply to a few of ]'s allegations since he insisted to have my comments on them. ].
{{collapse top}}
::::'''User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races- accusing them of being savage and "Barbarian".'''
:::::The issue dealing with 阎崇年 is . He published a book with very controversial views about the Manchus and the Hans. Since you don't seem to be familiar with Chinese history, I'd recommend you to read up on what 阎崇年 said and the relevant background information about the Qing and Ming dynasties. Suffice to say, the Han and all other racial minorities (including the Hui) suffered greatly under Qing rule. It was also a time when cultural identities of non-Manchus were strictly suppressed. Since the mismanagement and brutality of the Manchus was a direct reason for China to suffer a century-long period of bloodshed and poverty, it is not necessarily ridiculous to harbour a great deal of resentment towards 阎崇年's opinions.
::::''''In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.''''
:::::The original quote did not link Qianlong's short-comings with his racial identity. I agree that Qianlong and many of the Qing emperors are intellectually-backward rulers. But so were/are Mao or George Bush. This has nothing to do with race.
::::''''Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.''''
:::::The comment is somewhat lacking in tact, but it is also not invalid. The Manchus had committed large scale massacres when they conquered China. Would you call someone a racist if a Jew tells you "the barbaric German nazi's were evil people who committed massacres on us"?
::::My verdict on the complaints I spent time to evaluate is that they are ignorant and ignorable. Please refrain from making these childish allegations in the future. ] (]) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}} ] (]) 21:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
=== User:Arilang1234 apparently thinks he can put original reasearch into the article ===
Quote from Arilang1234-
Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use ?] (]) 04:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
===Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before===
User:Arilang1234 has inserted . saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against , not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang I put the wikisource article through google translate in the link, so everyone can read it, and see that Arilang1234 either cannot read what , since he created it, or is just flat out lying. I don't accuse people of lying lightly, but it appears in this case that Arilang1234 deliberately misrepresented sources.
In light of this, i think we can say that none of the translations Arilang1234 does on this talk page are reliable, and even if they were, they do not change the fact that by posting links to random websites, he is not explaining on how they are reliable sources, Arilang doesnt even seem to comprehend what a ] is since he tried to use wikisource as a source!] (]) 04:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I also do not appreciate the Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me.] (]) 04:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
|style="padding-left:0.6cm"|Hi! I'm here to provide a third opinion, as per the request on ]. Skimming through the discussion so far, the following needs to be established: 1) ] need to be avoided. While it is biased to venerate the Boxers ('''Addendum''': I am '''not''' implying that Дунгане is guilty of this, only that it exists in the article, probably added by an easlier editor), calling the Boxers "really a bunch of looters and murderers, who would chop women and children into bits and pieces" is horribly biased as well, and ''both'' should be avoided. 2) All views need to be equally presented, without giving either side more weight than the other, as per the ]. So a simple compromise is this: State the social and economic background of the Boxers (avoiding POV labels such as "murderers" or "heroes"). Then present opinions from both sides, quoting the source from which each point of view originates. For example, to say that "the Boxers are national heroes" is POV, but to say that "the PRC considers the Boxers to be national heroes" is not. The Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic and it's natural that there will be disputes, so let's all make sure to keep it civil here.—] ] 04:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
|}
::I never, ever edited anywhere in the article to say that the Boxers were national heroes, if you look at the article history and my edits, you will see i have inserted no such POV, on the other hand, it is inserting POV into the article. he claimed that "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", yet i do not see anyone on this talk page who agreed to him changing the lead.] (]) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Like I said, I'm new to this discussion, so I apologise for any unintended mischaracterisations! POV, from either side, needs to be removed. And the lead, regardless of who's been tinkering with it, contains weasel words which need to be removed or changed as soon as possible, as according to the ] policy and the ]. The lead also needs a general clean-up, the phrasing and the flow between the paragraphs could be improved.--] ] 05:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::There are some serious false equivalences in this third opinion. From following this discussion and the diffs provided, it is clear that Arilang is fighting to insert strongly held anti-Boxer views, but you can't tell Дунгане's viewpoint from his edits, as xe has properly ] the characterizations of the Boxers that xe has added. Also, not all viewpoints should be "equally presented". If a viewpoint is a minority, revisionist, and political viewpoint, such as that the Boxers were merely "ignorant bandits", that should clearly be indicated, and the content reduced from the overwhelming overrepresentation it receives on this article. By the way, although Arilang is trying to implicate any Boxer-sympathetic viewpoints by aligning them with the PRC, as the article itself notes, modern PRC views are more ambivalent and nuanced than in the early ideological days. ] (]) 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Providing a third opinion, it's inherent that I haven't been following the discussion, but I am aware of Arilang's POV. As I mentioned, the weasel words and editorialising in the lead do need to be removed, and I have not argued against that point; edits akin to "ignorant bandits" do not belong in the lead. Under the "]" policy, mainstream opinions should be given emphasis, but you have to admit, wording like "perverse demands" is contentious as well, and all the editorialising in the article, regardless of who they originate from, need to go. I ''completely agree'' that mainstream perspectives need to be given preference, but there are better ways to do that than by countering POV with more POV.--] ] 06:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Well, "Western, white missionaries and Chinese christians used their imperialist powers to steal the lands and property of the Chinese peasants to give to the church, and made perverse demands, which the Chinese could not resist." "steal the lands and property of the Chinese peasants to give to the church", sounds very controversial to me.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 06:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree that there are NPOV problems with the wording, and the sentence does contain ]. But the correct course of action is ''not'' to add more contentious words to the article from the opposite POV, but to fix the existing content.--] ] 06:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Is it controversial that these things happened; do you have scholarship to refute it? Otherwise, it is a question of tone, and "stole" can be euphemized with some Latinate replacement like in the rest of Misplaced Pages, possibly with "appropriated", "expropriated", etc. ] (]) 06:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree, it's better to rephrase the sentence than to add content from the opposite POV into the lead.--] ] 06:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
As an example, one section added by Arilang, and another from an earlier editor:
*"Chinese Imperial Army and Boxer snipers constantly killed foreigners, and Chinese artillery crushed the French settlements into dust. A Frenchman, Englishman, two americans, and George Peters were shot to death by Chinese snipers in the settlements area"
**"Crushed... to dust" is a ] phrase. So is the use of the word "constantly", a weasel word, which is extremely vague in this context. How much is "constantly"?
*"Western, white missionaries and Chinese christians used their imperialist powers to steal the lands and property of the Chinese peasants to give to the church, and made perverse demands, which the Chinese could not resist."
**"Perverse demands" is another ] phrase. There are other ways to phrase this while conveying the same meaning without the same connotations.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, both of these sections need to be fixed.--] ] 06:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::User:hkr, "Reportedly the Muslim commander sat on the skin and ate the heart of the German minister von Ketteler.", is this statement really needed in an Encyclopedia?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 06:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:::All I've emphasised is that NPOV problems need to be resolved by fixing the content, ''not'' by adding content with the same problems from the opposite POV. It's highly exaggerated to go from that fairly mundane suggestion, to a strawman implicating that I'm supporting some random quote selectively pulled off the article. --] ] 06:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
::User hkr, I did not mean to imply you in any way, all I did was asking for your opinion, that is all.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I won't know without context, researching it as we speak. :) --] ] 15:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
== Why is Arilang1234 inserting Cantonese terms, when all the Boxers and northerners spoke Mandarin? ==
Why is Arilang1234 bent on inserting "gweilo", into the article, when the ''']''' speaking Boxers, and the Imperial Court, which spoke the ] of '''Mandarin''', never spoke ]?
The Boxers refered to the Westerners as "foreign devils" guǐzi(鬼子). They never used the '''Cantonese''' term ].
The Muslim Kansu Braves, who were from ] province, spoke the north western dialect of mandarin, the Gansu dialect, saying Erh Mao Tzu, means secondary devil, refering to christians, and is a mandarin expression, not cantonese. The Boxers and Imperial troops '''never''' spoke a single word of cantonese.] (]) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:For Christ's sake. It is as if you aren't spamming complaints over every last bit of insignificant matter. If you do a little research, gweilo and guizi have the exact same meaning and share the same page in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
::i suggest you do some research before making assertions. Guizi is 鬼子, in chinese, while Gweilo is 鬼佬, different characters at the ending, Arilang 1234 presented a source in chinese characters, that calls its authenticity into doubt if the characters are totally different than what was used in the source. not only that, Guizi means foreign devil, it does not mean ghost men, which is central to Arilang1234's claim that foreigners were seen as unhuman by the boxers.] (]) 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:::They are the same thing. Do you even know Chinese? ] (]) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
::::鬼佬 and 鬼子 are DIFFERENT CHARACTERS- What i was saying that Arilang claimed it specifically said Gweilo, which is 鬼佬, yet 鬼佬, is a '''cantonese'' term, not mandarin. I speak mandarin and have never heard it used, ever. Arilang1234 claimed it came directly from boxer texts, yet the text he posted on this talk page all said 鬼子. The cantonese word for 子, sounds nothing like "Lo".] (]) 04:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::User:Дунгане, "I speak mandarin and have never heard it used, ever.", well, maybe it is because you are ignorant, you only have yourself to blame. Ever heard of ], and ], and ] ?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 05:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::I agree. He doesn't know what he's talking about. ] (]) 06:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Replying to both Дунгане and Arilang, this dispute is becoming absurdly pedantic. There is no need to have a dispute over something so minor. 鬼子 and 鬼佬 are ''technically'' different words, but they have similar meanings and similar connotations. A very easy fix to this, would be to use Guizi while linking to the Gweilo article, as in:<nowiki>]</nowiki>. Do we really need to fight over an issue as trivial as ''this''?--] ] 06:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Chiang Kaishek and Sun Yatsen despised ] intellectuals like ]. Chiang promoted Confucianism in the ], Lu hated confucianism. {{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc4UAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA13&dq=chiang+may+iconoclastic+nationalist&hl=en&ei=P2yaTIiKJsKB8ga-oPVK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=The May fourth movement in Shanghai: the making of a social movement in modern China|author=Joseph T. Chen|year=1971|publisher=Brill Archive|location=|page=13|isbn=|pages=|accessdate=2010-06-28}}
::::However, Mao Zedong agreed with Lu Xun's views against Chinese culture, starting ] to fulfill Lu and the other May Fourth movement's plans.] (]) 06:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::How is that relevant? My impression is that ] summarized this issue very well. If you have a bone to pick with ] and cannot stop yourself from beating dead horses, you may want to continue this in his talk page. ] (]) 12:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:::FYI, I'm not the one who is spamming 20 plus paragraphs onto this talk page, from wikisource, and saying "this needs to be translated". Arilang1234 has done that like over fifty times, go look in the archives and on this current page.] (]) 20:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Just by looking at this page, I'd say you have, by far, started the most topics and most of which are complaints about Arilang. Also, you still have not acknowledged that you have started some unnecessary bickering over negligible differences between 鬼子 and 鬼佬. ] (]) 21:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::Just by looking at the archives, '''AND''' this page, Arilang1234 spammed long paragraphs in simplified characters, doing some "Strange" translations, he type Guizi 鬼子 in his paragraph, but transliterated it as "gweilo". Lets say for one second that the Boxers "Did" speak cantonese. His transliteration is still off, since 子 is not lo in cantonese. This is a clear case of an attempt to assert cantonese linguistic superiority over chinese articles, which is off. Keep in mind that not all of us speak cantonese, which is not the official language of any country, and insignifigant. not only that, Arilang1234 has threatened to attack living people in in the archives on this talk page. Go look yourself, i already notified admins about his threat. and all my "complaints", are legitimate, i provided Diffs to show Arilang1234's bad faith edits.] (]) 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::I don't see how there is a case of asserting cantonese linguistic superiority. The fact that you persisted in pushing a point that is clearly incorrect on a matter that is clearly insignificant already contradicts your assrtion that "all "complaints", are legimate". Since I refuse to continue to beat this dead horse, I will leave it at that. ] (]) 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
===Yet another bizarre and false accusation===
"Arilang1234 has threatened to attack living people in in the archives on this talk page", User:Дунгане, please show me the evidence, and allow me to remind you again, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boxer Rebellion article." If you wish to talk about my editing style, go to my talk page.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 00:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:I think Дунгане has some legitimate concerns about POV issues. Adding content advocating the opposite POV as you did, and not fixing the existing POV issues, is not a constructive response. However, Дунгане is getting slightly pedantic over some relatively trivial problems. Let's all keep it cool here, I'm editing the lead right now to remove the POV from both sides of this dispute.--] ] 01:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::Threat quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- ] (]) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
],
Pieing is the act of throwing a pie at a person. This can be a political action when the target is an authority figure, politician, or celebrity and can be used as a means of protesting against the target's political beliefs, or against a perceived flaw — e.g.arrogance or hubris — in the target's character. Perpetrators generally regard the act as a form of ridicule to embarrass and humiliate the victim. In some U.S. states pieing may conform to definitions of battery, but not assault. Pieing and pie fights is a staple of slapstick comedy, and pie "tosses" are also common charity fundraising events. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 03:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Julia Gillard has escaped unhurt after a protester threw an egg at her during her Perth visit. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
== Lead cleanup ==
I've , removing much of the POV, rephrasing and reworking the content to reflect a much more neutral view. Hopefully, this will address complaints regarding both points of view. Are both parties content with the changes? --] ] 04:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:If editors do read some of the ] essays, among Chinese scholars and historians, there are two different view points towards BR. I think this needs to be mentioned at the lead, to make it more neutral.
{{cquote|The piece, written by Yuan Weishi, a reform-minded scholar at Zhongshan University in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou, criticized Chinese textbooks for teaching an incomplete history of China's last imperial dynasty, the Qing, that fosters blind nationalism and closed-minded anti-foreign sentiment.
For example, he challenged the textbooks for portraying the 1900 Boxer Rebellion as a "magnificent feat of patriotism" without describing the violence committed by the rebels or their extreme anti-foreign views. He also criticized the books for blaming the Opium Wars of the mid-1800s entirely on foreign nations, without mentioning the Qing government's record of violating treaties by refusing foreign merchants access to Chinese cities.
:Both viewpoints are already mentioned. Whether nor not this ''specific'' quote should be in it, is debatable. I've already added the quote by Sun Yat-sen, with the Mark Twain quote representing the opposite viewpoint. Having two quotes for one point of view, and one for another, is not neutral, would you agree?--] ] 04:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::Also, the notion that the Boxer Rebellion is a contentious topic debated among Chinese scholars, is already in the lead: "''However, perceptions of the Boxers, among 20th century Chinese intellectuals and modern scholars, remains heavily nuanced.''"--] ] 04:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need such a long quotation from Mark Twain? Since when he had become an expert on Chinese 20th century history?
And, the words "heavily nuanced", couldn't we use other better words? The Chinese translation of "nuance" is 细微差别, according to online dictionary, it is :"a very slight difference or variation in color or tone". According to ], Boxers were bandits and arsonists, whereas Chinese school test books(which represent official governmental view points) portray them as patriots. There ought to be better words to describe the differences. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 04:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:The Chinese translation does not accurately convey the meaning of the English word, which is to be expected. Nuanced does not specifically mean slight as in "small", a more accurate defintion would be "subtle" with a connotation of "complex". But, to ameliorate your concerns, I think a revision to "nuanced, complex, and contentious" should be satisfactory.--] ] 05:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
{{cquote|The Boxer Rebellion, also called The Boxer Uprising by some historians or the Righteous Harmony Society Movement in northern China, was a nationalist movement by the "Righteous Harmony Society" (义和团 -Yìhétuán), or "Righteous Fists of Harmony" or "Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists" (known as "Boxers" in English), in China between 1898 and 1901, opposing Western imperialism and Christianity.}}
The above opening sentence has terms like: "The Boxer Rebellion...was a nationalist movement", "opposing Western imperialism", all these view points should clearly be labeled "according to Chinese government", because these are certainly not ]'s view points.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 05:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::"According to the Chinese government". This is a straw man, and ignores the topic at hand. I don't care about the Chinese government; my goal is to ensure that the lead remains neutral. In the English language, nationalist ''has no'' connotation, positive or negative. To give you examples: the French Revolution, Mount Rushmore, and Nazism could all be considered nationalistic. Nationalism is a neutral term that simply means "identification with a political entity", which is perfectly descriptive with what the Boxer Rebellion was. And the Boxer Rebellion did oppose imperialism. The Communists also opposed imperialism, this doesn't mean that they were ''right'', only that opposing imperialism was one of their beliefs. You ''can debate'' whether their beliefs are justified, but that does not change that fact that they did believe in it. As for Yuan Weishi, see the section on "]", the objective of the article is not to give a single person's viewpoints more weight than any other, especially if the view has already been represented in the article.--] ] 06:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Chinese discourses on the peasant, 1900-1949 By：Xiaorong Han(Dr. Xiaorong Han -Associate Professor, Department of History and Anthropology, Butler University)
{{cquote|Page 21:...almost all educated Chinese who supported the Boxers during the Boxer Rebellion admitted that the Boxers were indeed ignorant. Chen Shaobai, the editor-in-chief of the Zhongguo Ribao, the mouthpiece of the Xingzhonghui, although refusing to call the Boxers "bandits", nevertheless believed that they had no political consciousness.}}
User hkr, allow me to remind you that Xiaorong Han:"nevertheless believed that they(Boxers) had no political consciousness". Shouldn't we take professor Han's viewpoint into consideration?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 06:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:# I've already mentioned the "bandits" viewpoint in the lead.
:#The sentence you quoted is '''not''' professor Han's viewpoint. He is quoting Chen Shaobai's, who was (as the same page states), sympathetic to the Boxers, considering them "brave and righteous" (using professor Han's own words), despite their ignorance.
:#The idea that the Boxers "had no political consciousness" is a retrospective analysis of the event. The Boxers considered themselves nationalists, and did so in opposition to Western influence. Whether or not this was true ''in practice'' is irrelevant for the introductory sentence. For example, the ] is hardly Communist anymore. The modern party has been labeled totalitarian, a dictatorship, an oligarchy; these are all valid point of views. However, this is ''not'' something you include in the introductary sentence. The first sentence should detail what they believed themselves to be, even if the claim is contentious. Descenting points of view should be represented (and I have done so) in the lead, but the first sentence is not the place for it.--] ] 06:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for including the term "bandits" in the lead, however, it is still very wrong to call them nationalists, which is a modern political term, nonexistence in pre-modern 1900 era, when ] (All under Heaven) was the norm, and nearly all foreigners were seen as barbarians, if not "Devils". To call them "Nationalists" is just as wrong as saying "Boxers love to eat ] chickens", as ] chickens were unavailable back then. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 08:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::This is historically wrong, plain and simple. The concept of nation states has existed since the 17th century in the West (see ]), and has existed and has been applied to East since the first half of the 19th century, through contact with the West: "''The increasing emphasis during the 19th century on the ethnic and racial origins of the nation, led to a redefinition of the nation-state in these terms''". The Tianxia concept was already heavily diluted by the 18th century with Han distrust of the Manchus (who were traditionally considered to be barbarians), and became ''officially'' abandoned with the ] in 1858, which was 40 years '''before''' the Boxer Rebellion in 1898. "''Following their defeat in the Second Opium War, China was forced to sign the Treaty of Tianjin, in which they were made to refer to Great Britain as a "sovereign nation", equal to itself. This made it impossible for China to continue dealing with other nations under the traditional tianxia system, and forced it to establish a foreign affairs bureau.''"--] ] 08:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
]
::The ] may have been signed by the Manchu rulers in 1858, and Great Britain may have been regarded as "sovereign nation" by then Manchu emperor, but ] concept had been with Han Chinese for 4000 plus years, and do you seriously think that it will simply go away when Manchu rulers began signing one or two treaties? Moreover, nearly all the Boxers members came from China rural hinterland,, and they were ignorant as well as uneducated, do you seriously think that 1900 Boxers would understand those modern political terms(nationalist, anti-imperialism, etc.)?<br>
Moreover, using your own words:"The Tianxia concept was already heavily diluted by the 18th century with Han distrust of the Manchus (who were traditionally considered to be barbarians)", OK, Manchus were distrusted by the Han Chinese, and all the Boxers were Chinese, now, in 1900 Boxers(Han Chinese) suddenly all ganged up to fight the foreigners, because they suddenly begin to love ], the dynasty that belong to ] family, whom the Han Chinese would regard as "Barbarians", you tell me, is not this theory a bit far fetch?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 09:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Your defintion of nationalism is wrong. Nationalism does ''not'' mean pro-government, and as the ] shows, nationalists can hate the government. Government =/= national identity, nationalism is akin to patriotism, and as I've shown, national identity existed in China during the 19th century, and became more fervent than ever with fears of Western influence. Your reply contradicts itself. You accept my assertion that "Tianxia concept was already heavily diluted by the 18th century", while saying that "concept had been with Han Chinese for 4000 plus years, and do you seriously think that it will simply go away". This is logically inconsistent. Also, you still haven't addressed the fact that your POV is contradicted by the very sources you've provided. I understand you want to add your POV into the lead, but the introductory sentence is '''not''' the place for it.--] ] 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::POV or not POV, I still advice you to go and read 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目 , by 侯宜傑. All these books and essays were important BR documents that cannot be ignored.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 10:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::But they shouldn't be included in the introductory sentence, which is the point I've been trying to make. ;) Analysis of the Boxer Rebellion, from both points of view, belongs in the lead, just not in the introductory sentence, as per the Manual of Style. So far your focus has been on the first sentence, but you are happy with the rest of the lead, I assume? --] ] 10:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::::" but you are happy with the rest of the lead, I assume?" My answer is a flat NO, Not happy at all. The current lead has too many "weasel" lines, too many unnecessary comments, like the one of Mark Twain. This lead is just too long, and tedious. If I am to write it, it shall be like this:(1) Boxers were xenophobic bandits who practice ]. The initial slogan was :To fight off the Manchus and to revive ] (Chinese:反清復明). (2) ] recruited Boxers to fight the ], that was when the Boxers force expanded rapidly, and the slogan was changed into "扶清灭洋" ("Support Qing, destroy the Western"). (3) Thinking that the boxers might help her to fight the western nations, who already had embassy in Peking, ] declared war on 11 nations. (4) When the Eight Nations Alliance sent in troops to protect their embassy staff and other civilians,the Empress fled. (5) Upon her return to Peking, she ordered the executions of all the leaders of the Boxers, signaled the end of this upheaval. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 13:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::"national identity existed in China during the 19th century, and became more fervent than ever with fears of Western influence." National Identity may have existed in China during 1800-1900, but tell me one thing, are you talking about the Manchus rulers, which was a minority, or the majority of the population, the Han Chinese? Who identify with who? As far as I know, they do not like each other.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 10:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::::An ] identity is different from a ] identity. But the thing is, neither liked the West. :) --] ] 10:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::As an example: The Scottish may dislike the English and vice versa, but both groups consider themselves to be ].--] ] 10:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::You have yet to answer my question: What was that "National Identity" you mentioned? Reference? Books?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 10:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Oh, there are many books about this topic. : "China was brought into the modern nation-state system in the nineteenth century... The catalyst for this turn was the national crises that came after China's defeat by the British during the 1840—42 Opium War and by the Japanese during the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War. The historical defeats and the subsequent humiliation at the hands of imperialist powers were the impetus for the rise of Chinese nationalism." If you're looking for a more general definition on what a national identity is, : "National identity is the relationship between nation and state that obtains when the people of that nation identify with the state." Keep in mind, however, the differences between state and government. Using the previous example, the ] is against the government (or, specifically, the Democratic administration), but they remain patriotic towards the state (the ]).--] ] 11:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::Western scholars can write anything they like, and books can say this and that, on such a complex topic like Chinese History, I am sure there are many different angles for us to look at. If you don't mind, who is this author Suisheng Zhao? His Chinese name, and any other books written by him? To me, 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目 , by 侯宜傑, are essential reading for serious readers who want to find out more about BR.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 13:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Suisheng Zhao is a at the ]. On Misplaced Pages, even for articles on Chinese subjects, books written by Chinese scholars are not considered preferential to those written by Western ones.--] ] 14:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added verifying that the movement was indeed a nationalist one.--] ] 15:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
== Yuan Weishi unreliable- Yuan lies about Ronglu, claiming he was pro Boxer, in reality, Ronglu was pro foreign and anti Boxer ==
Arilang1234 has posted text written by Yuan Weishi, criticizing Ronglu for supporting the Boxers. The following evidence from academic texts written by people with PHDs in history, not '''philosophy''' which is what Yuan Weishi has degree in, expose Yuan's lack of knowledge about Ronglu and the Boxers.
Ronglu deliberately sabotaged the performance of the Imperial army during the ]. When Dong Fuxiang's muslim troops were eager to and could have destroy the foreigners in the legations, Ronglu stopped them from doing so.{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=8hiGU_tJEocC&pg=PA54&dq=yangcun+dong+fuxiang&hl=en&ei=KQe2TMCFOsP98AaV29SgCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ronglu%20not%20boxers%20made%20sure%20siege%20was%20never%20pressed%20home&f=false|title=story in three keys: the boxers as event, experience, and myth|author=Paul A. Cohen|year=1997|publisher=Columbia University Press|page=54|isbn=0231106505|accessdate=2010-06-28}}< The Manchu General ], was xenophobic and was friends with ]. Zaiyi wanted artillery for Dong Fuxiang's troops to destroy the legations. Ronglu blocked the transfer of artillery to Zaiyi and Dong, preventing them from destroying the legations.{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=GiqiIYdocKMC&pg=PA216&dq=ronglu+legations&hl=en&ei=nCS2TLP7GIH-8AazmpGYDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ronglu%20legations&f=false|title=Empress dowager Cixi: China's last dynasty and the long reign of a formidable concubine : legends and lives during the declining days of the Qing Dynasty|author=X. L. Woo|year=2002|publisher=Algora Publishing|page=216|isbn=1892941880|accessdate=2010-06-28}} When artillery was finally supplied to the Imperial Army and Boxers, it was only done so in limited amounts, Ronglu deliberately held back the rest of them.{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=40WRdm1LstQC&pg=PA94&dq=ronglu+legations&hl=en&ei=nCS2TLP7GIH-8AazmpGYDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ronglu%20legations&f=false|title=Beijing: a concise history|author=Stephen G. Haw|year=2007|publisher=Taylor & Francis|page=94|isbn=0415399068|accessdate=2010-06-28}}
It was Ronglu and other "moderates", who withdrew the Kansu Muslim warriors from Beijing, in order to let the foreigners march right in. The Muslim troops were feared intensely by the foreigners.{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/?id=J07_tPJu9M8C&dq=kansu+braves+from+the+marines+path&q=path+braves+court|title=Dragon lady: the life and legend of the last empress of China|author=Sterling Seagrave, Peggy Seagrave|year=1993|publisher=Vintage Books|location=|page=318|isbn=0679733698|pages=601|accessdate=2010-06-28}}
Ronglu also deliberately hid an Imperial Decree from General ]. The Decree ordered him to stop fighting the Boxers due to the foreign invasion, and also because the population was suffering from the campaign against the Boxers. Due to Ronglu's treachery, General Nie continued to fight against the Boxers and killed many of them, while the foreign invaders were making their way into China. Ronglu also ordered Nie to protect foreigners and save the railway from the Boxers.{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lAxresT12ogC&pg=PA235&dq=ronglu+supplies+legations&hl=en&ei=nR-2TPvuJ8P78Abk7ZD6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=The origins of the Boxer War: a multinational study|author=Lanxin Xiang|year=2003|publisher=Psychology Press|location=|page=235|isbn=0700715630|pages=|accessdate=2010-6-28}}
During the war, due to the fact that parts of the Railway were saved under Ronglu's orders, the foreign invasion army was able to transport itself into China quickly.
Due to Ronglu's sabotage, General Nie was forced to fight the Boxers as the foreign army advanced into China. The fierce Boxer insurgency led General Nie to commit thousands of troops against them, instead of against the foreigners. Nie was already outnumbered by the Allies by 4,000 men. General Nie was blamed for attacking the Boxers, as Ronglu intended to sabotage Nie and let him take all the blame. At the ], General Nie decided to take his own life by walking into the range of Allied guns.{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wWvl9O4Gn1UC&q=li+was+well+aware+of+marked+value+of+weaponry#v=onepage&q=exposed%20himself%20to%20fire%20died&f=false|title=Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war|author=Jane E. Elliott|year=2002|publisher=Chinese University Press|location=|page=499|isbn=9629960664|pages=|accessdate=2010-6-28}}
::Misplaced Pages is not your internet forum, if you think "Yuan Weishi unreliable", go to other web site forums and talk it over.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 22:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
== The Gelaohui Bandits of Sun Yatsen- Hui muslims supported Manchus against Dr. Sun's Gelaohui bandits ==
Its ironic how the Gelaohui of Dr. Sun, were notoriously anti foreign, killing foreigners, yet Arilang1234 does not say a word against them.
Arilang1234 also shows lack of knowledge about Hui muslims in China. in "Ethnicity and Politics in Republican China: The Ma Family Warlords of Gansu", by Professor Jonathan Neaman Lipman, it shows that Hui Generals like ] supported the Qing dynasty, fighting Sun Yatsen's Gelaohui bandits. General ], another muslim, beheaded Gelaohui thugs who tried to participate in the Xinhai Revolution.
Arilang1234 seems to think that Hui are anti manchu because of the Dungan Revolt- that is a '''myth'''.
Dr. Sun Yatsen's Gelaohui Bandits '''attacked''' foreign Catholic christian mission posts in Ningxia. the Gelaohui bandits were .
Dr. Sun Yatsen was linked to the '''Bandit''' leader
In the Yangtze, the Gelaohui
Mongol General Shengyun sent his Qing loyalist Muslim troops loose in ] (]) 17:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
=== Dr. Sun Yatsen himself was classified as a bandit ===
] (]) 19:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:Is it really necessary to start a separate section each time you comment? Discuss this under one heading.--] ] 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::User Дунгане, you are extremely keen to advance your "Hui people was neglected by Chinese" concept, so you came to this article and began working hard. Don't you think you are overdoing it? Sun Yatsen may have collaborate with some bandits during his revolution times, why not just talk it over in ] talk page?<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 22:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::That's because "Дунгане" is a Russian name for the "Hui Chinese". If he keeps on spamming the talk page with irrelevant rubbish, you guys might want to draft and ANI about blocking. ] (]) 00:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:::User Bobthefish2, there is already a ANI:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boxer_Rebellion
and it looks like user Дунгане is becoming more disruptive than constructive.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 01:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:And does it matter what Sun Yatsen labeled as? He was an important nationalist leader of the ], which makes his views relevant, especially on a movement such as the Boxers. Keep it mind, while Sun Yatsen did call the Boxers "bandits" (and this is a fact that should be included in the lead), he also admired the Boxers for their "spirit of resistance".--] ] 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
== Lead part 2 ==
I understand Arilang's concerns. I've made the that, while still reflecting a neutral point of view, should address any of his concerns:
#Nationalist > Proto-nationalist
#Mentioning that educated Chinese (initially!) considered the Boxers to be "ignorant" and so-called "barbarians"
Hopefully we're all happy with the lead now? Except for the length of the lead, but I'll work on that later. --] ] 02:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks user hkr, at last we have someone who is both able and "neutral" to work on this important topic. This is a very good start. Something else I would like to see on the lead:
*(1) The Mark Twain comment is out of place, has to go.
*(2) The ] (神打) nature of the Boxers worth at least one sentence on the lead.
*(3) Quote:"The Boxers called foreigners "Guizi" (鬼子), a deprecatory term, and condemned Chinese Christian converts and Chinese working for Westerners " This statement is misleading, the fact is, and it had been well documented in many books, the Boxers were into extermination and annihilation of foreigners and Chinese Christians.
*(4) Empress Cizi openly supported and encouraged Boxer activities, which was the main reason why BR had became a national disaster.
::Wrong, Cixi was '''forced''' to support the Boxers, During the war, Cixi displayed concern about China's situation and foreign aggression, saying, "Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?" The massive support of the chinese people led Cixi to support the Boxers.{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jVESdBSMasMC&pg=PA289&dq=Perhaps+their+magic+is+not+to+be+relied+upon:+but+can+we+not+rely+on+the+hearts+and+minds+of+the+people%3F+Today+China+is+extremely+weak.+We+have+only+the+people's+hearts+and+minds+to+depend+upon.+If+we+cast+them+aside+and+lose+the+people's+hearts,+what+can+we&hl=en&ei=sRa2TOuXDsG88gaL9azjCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Perhaps%20their%20magic%20is%20not%20to%20be%20relied%20upon%3A%20but%20can%20we%20not%20rely%20on%20the%20hearts%20and%20minds%20of%20the%20people%3F%20Today%20China%20is%20extremely%20weak.%20We%20have%20only%20the%20people's%20hearts%20and%20minds%20to%20depend%20upon.%20If%20we%20cast%20them%20aside%20and%20lose%20the%20people's%20hearts%2C%20what%20can%20we&f=false|title=The origins of the Boxer Uprising|author=Joseph Esherick|year=1988|publisher=University of California Press|location=|page=289|isbn=0520064593|pages=|accessdate=2010-6-28}}
::
::], a very corrupt Manchu prince, was pro foreign. he was replaced by the ]
::It was because of the '''illegal''' western invaion of Seymour,
::From this, it is clear that
::#1, Empress Dowager Cixi was not completely pro boxer, she helped the pro foreign manchu Princes Ronglu and Qing, against the Pro Boxer prince Duan.
::#2, you cannot say the court supported the Boxers. original General Nie's army, under Cixi and Ronglu, and Prince Qing's orders were fighting against Boxers They were forced to change side, because Admiral Seymour invaded China, they needed to get the Boxers to attack the foreigners.
::#3, the muslim kansu troops under Dong Fuxiang, and Prince Zaiyi's manchu banner troops attacked the foreingers in legations, however, the corrupt Manchu prince Qing and Ronglu send their own manchu banner troops to attack Dong and Zaiyi's muslim and manchu troops, to rescue the foreigner in legations. Ronglu was close to Cixi, so this could have been on her orders. Ronglu and prince qing even send food and supplies to the foreigners in the legation while the muslim warriors were attacking the legations!
::#4, ] blocked artillery going to the muslim troops, to stop them from destroye the foreinger. Ronglu is clearly pro foreign, this is sourced in the ] article.] (]) 06:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
'''Lead Part 3''' <br>
. Trying to address the comments by both Arilang and Дунгане: (the following are responses to the specific points brought up by Arilang)
#I strongly disagree, the Mark Twain comment needs to stay. I've already , but it should be in there. Since this is a conflict between China and the West, it is important that Western perspectives be included in the lead too. The lead can't ''purely'' consist of Chinese views.
#I've edited it so that "claiming supernatural invulnerability towards blows" links to the ] article.
#That's already included: "targeting mission compounds". "Extermination" and "annihilation" are ] (under the Manual of Style), but if you'd like, I've reworded it to "violently targeting Christian mission compounds" to make it clearer.
#The Boxers initially fought ''against'' the Qing. That the Qing later supported the Boxers is already mentioned. However, if the original line wasn't clear enough, I've reworded it to: "In response, the initially hesitant ], urged by the conservatives of the Imperial Court, supported the Boxers and declared war on ]", which should please both Arilang and Дунгане.
The rest of the article may need more work, but the lead, although long, is fine for now. Or not?
--] ] 08:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks user hkr, indeed, the lead has improved a lot, sort of acceptable, even though ] and 侯宜傑 might not fully agree with the wording. But then this is Misplaced Pages, where "consensus" is everything.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 11:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I would add my word of thanks to HKK. I would judge that he has cobbled together an acceptable lead. However, I have one question. The lead says that the Boxers had "massive support from ordinary Chinese." I would agree that is a true statement for northern China -- but was it true south of Shandong? Should the article read "enjoyed massive support from ordinary Chinese in northern China?" It is my understanding that there was little support for the Boxers in the South and little or no violence aimed at foreigners in Shanghai and other cities. Smallchief 12:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::::I don't know, it was in the original lead and I didn't bother to change it. Researching it as we speak.--] ] 12:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
===Suggestions===
{{cquote|Diplomats, foreign civilians, soldiers and some Chinese Christians retreated to the Legation Quarter where they remained for 55 days until the Eight-Nation Alliance brought 20,000 armed troops to defeat the Boxers.}}
My suggestions:
*(1) "remained for 55 days", not entirely correct, should be "they survived 55 days of violent attacks undertook by Boxers and Imperial Army soldiers."
*(2) "until the Eight-Nation Alliance brought 20,000 armed troops to defeat the Boxers." the 20,000 armed troops were on a rescue mission to save life, since the Imperial Court was either unable, or unwilling to do so.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 11:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:The lines you've brought up are from the original lead. Either way, I can't make those changes, as it's against the ], which details that "neutral" words are preferred. Phrases and words like "save lives", "survived" (in this context), "liberate", "freedom fighter", "cult" aren't allowed since they have an emotional connotation that acts as a ]. Also, "to save life, since the Imperial Court was either unable, or unwilling to do so" is wrong. The Imperial Court declared war on foreign powers, it was under no obligation to defend the foreigners, since technically, they were at war.--] ] 12:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
**I really appreciate your work on this article which was in danger of becoming a total mess until you came along. I would suggest the followeing three changes to the above statement. "Diplomats, foreign civilians, soldiers, and Chinese Christians retreated to the Legation Quarter where they remained under siege for 55 days until the Eight National Alliance brought 20,000 armed troops to defeat the Chinese army and the Boxers."
**My points are -- (1) omit "some." About 6,000 Chinese Christians took refuge in the Legation Quarter and the Beitang (North Cathedral). That seems to me more than "some." (2) for clarity adding the words "under siege" seems advisable. (3) add the "Chinese army." The primary opponent of the 20,000 foreign troops was the Chinese Army. The Boxers melted away as an organization and fighting force. Smallchief 12:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
***Some was in the original lead, but I agree, it shouldn't be there, it's a classic example of a ] and needs to go. I agree with the two other points as well, and I've . Thank you for the suggestions.--] ] 13:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
=== false- The foreigners did not "survive 50 days of violent attacks"- they were almost destroyed by the Imperial army, only because the imperial army intself declared a truce did they survive ===
User:Arilang1234 claims- "they survived 55 days of violent attacks undertook by Boxers and Imperial Army soldiers."
Yet the Imperial army troops were on the verge of demolishing the foreigners, but the pro foreign manchu princes ] and ] completely blocked artillery to the muslim army, not only that,
]'s Manchu troops were pro foriegn, and
] was pro foreign, he was in charge of the entire siege, and he made sure
::According to a Chinese scholar, the Boxers were "'''anti imperialist'''", and it is documented that Cixi was '''forced''' to support the Boxers, and manchu princes ronglu and qing were pro foreign.
::I have added Qing Empire troops who fought against other Qing troops, as combatants along with the 8 nation alliances in the article, i feel this is justied from the sources i presented, that pro foreign Prince Qing ordered his troops to directly attack Prince Duan's anti foreign troops during the siege of the beijing legations.] (]) 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I disagree with your additions to the lead, not on the grounds that they are wrong, but because they've already been mentioned/implied and thus are redundant. That the Boxers were against Western Imperialism is mentioned in the first paragraph, and stated explicitly in the introductary sentence: "opposing Western imperialism and Christianity". And the notion that the liberal elements of the Imperial Court supported the foreigners, is already implied in the sentence: "the initially hesitant Empress Dowager Cixi, urged by the ''conservatives'' of the Imperial Court, supported the Boxers and declared war on foreign powers."--] ] 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
::User hkr has done quite a good job in editing the lead section, which was a complete mess before he came on board, and I hope that it would not return to the earlier sad situation too soon. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 02:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
::This isn't about simply "'''supporting''' the foreigners", pro foreign Imperial Army Manchu Bannermen under Prince Qing actually '''attacked''' the anti foreign forces of Prince Tuan and Dong Fuxiang, as mentioned and linked above by me, '''after''' the declaration of war and the start of the siege. They '''militarily''' helped the foreingers, and sent large amounts of '''supplies''' to them during the siege. Prince ] '''stopped''' the muslim braves from destroying the legations.] (]) 20:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
:::The Manchu bannermen under Prince Qing and Ronglu were totally pro foreign, and helped the foreigners during the siege against ]'s forces. Indicating that '''all''' the manchu princes were anti foreign would be a big lie. User:Arilang1234 is suggesting that the Manchus were entirely responsible for all the anti foreignism, his views don't hold up to reality. Cixi herself supplied food and supplies to the foreigners during the siege.
:::And Cixi and Prince Duan were not against adopting modern technology, Prince Duan commanded modernized Manchu army divisions, the divine tiger and spirit corps, and the muslim kansu braves had repeater mauser rifles and artillery. They did '''not''' fight with bows, arrows, and spears. The reason Tuan and Cixi destroyed the Hundred Day's reformers was because they thought, (correctly, as revealed by some modern scholars), that foreigners were behind the "reform", which was actually a coup plot by the westerners to seize control of china. Arilang1234 is pushing POV that the Manchus refused to adopt modern technology and crushed the reform movement because they were "barbaric". this is false. A reliable Taiwanese proffesor, 雷家聖, wrote a book called 力挽狂瀾: 戊戌政變新探, on how the so called "hundred days reform", was a plot by a western christian missionary to seize control of the Chinese government, but Cixi and prince Duan crushed his plot on time before he could accomplish it.
:::However, corrupt, pro foreign, Manchu princes like Prince Qing and Ronglu were against the Boxers, and supported the foreigners during the war. The fact that they were pro foreign totally throws all of Arilang1234's position out the window, since Arilang claimed the Manchus were anti foreign xenophobes who started the whole rebellion.
:::Unlike mainland China proffesors like Yuan Weishi, Professor Lei is from Taiwan and unbiased in his views.] (]) 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Seems like you are suggesting Professor Lei is ''unbiased'' because he is from Taiwan and not China. This seems to reflect well on your accusation of racism on other people. ] (]) 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
:::The fact that Imperial Army units under Prince Qing, battled against anti foreign units in the imperial army must be included in the lead. It is very important when part of your own army is attacking another part of your army, in favor of the foreigners.] (]) 21:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Your opinion that Imperial units fought on the side of the foreign armies and with each other is not substantiated by your references. Both of your references are journalism, not scholarship nor history. One of them says it was "reported once or twice that his troops had clashed with those of Prince Duan." Your other reference says that "several encounters took place on the streets" of Beijing between different Chinese armies. That's not enough evidence to conclude that Imperial Chinese armies fought on the sides of the foreigners. Smallchief 12:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
::Taiwanese and people from mainland China are from the same ethnic group, its because of the political situation in China, and repression of thought that we get radically emotional views from the mainland, some Hui people in mainland even are now culture, but on taiwan, we have never complained or heard such things as "feudal" Ming repressing Hui. In fact, a Hui writer from taiwan . This new element of thinking of hui on the mainland was clearly the result of communist education of Imperial China being "feudal". I disagree alot with people from mainalnd now because of their communist education, now i hear "things" about Han people who have like 0.0000001% Uyghur ancestry being registered as "pure Uyghur", in ] by the communist party.] (]) 21:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
::User:Дунгане keep on forgetting this article is about Boxer Rebellion, it is not about Hundred Day Reform, nor Han people Repress Hui people. I think User:Дунгане needs some sort of coaching from more experienced editors, to help him on English spelling and grammar.
On the Imperial Court internal political fighting, since it is already mentioned in the main article, no need to add it to the lead section, which is already tediously too long for everyday readers.]
== Casualties not displaying in article ==
:::This is really insulting, coming from a person who spelled "Savages" as ] (]) 01:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Please edit article to actually display the casualties. The text is there, but it is not appearing in normal view. Thanks. ] (]) 01:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:Fixed, 'twas another bracketing error. Thanks for noticing. ]] 01:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
== Source: Prince Qing's Manchu Bannermen fought against Kansu braves, in favor of the foreigners ==
"Further attacks were opposed by the 10,000 men of the Manchu garrison controllbed by Prince Ching, who killed many Boxers and Kansu soldiers in endeavoring to drive them from their positions in front of the legations". This was not a news report or journalism.] ] (]) 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 03:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
===Misleading statement contributed by User:Дунгане===
== Infobox disruption ==
Quote:"During the siege, pro foreign Imperial army units under Prince Qing fought against the anti foreign Imperial army units besieging the foreigners, in addition, the supreme commander of the Chinese forces, Ronglu, was pro foreign himself and acted in a way that prevented Chinese success. "<br>
Anyone who is familiar with ] history, would know that the official name of China's last dynasty is 大清帝國, Great Qing Dynasty, and the Manchus would call it Daicing Gurun, and during nearly 300 years of Manchu rule, the Manchus did not consider themselves "Chinese", and the term "Chinese" was reserved for Han Chinese. In this statement written by User:Дунгане, the term "Chinese" was used twice, which may confuse some everyday readers. I sincerely hope that User:Дунгане does not need other editors to remind him(or her) again and again that writing encyclopedia is different from casual chatting on internet forum. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
@], if you're actually looking at the diffs, you would see your reversion messes a lot up more than just adding commanders not mentioned in the article back into what's meant to be a summary of the article. As it stands, the infobox is about at capacity per ]—I'm sure some of the figures listed could be swapped out once the article is properly written to include them though. At this point, we should be looking at the sources and asking if each item listed constitutes a key fact about the conflict. What you shouldn't keep doing is indiscriminately stuffing it out of spite, though. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::i sincerely hope that User:Arilang1234 realizes that without any sources, his comments and personal analysis, which is original research, is invalid. I sincerely hope that Arilang1234 does not think that posting original research and claiming his own theory about the etymology of the word chinese, that he does not think that it would deflect attention from his edits calling manchus "Barbarians", and inserting mass spam into the article
::earlier threats at All of user Arilang1234's earliest edits to the Boxer Rebellion, were reverted as incoherent, unsourced nonsense. I hope that he learns his lesson and does not attempt that again.] (]) 01:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
::and i also hope that Arilang1234 actually reads the sources in the article, which state Han chinese troops were in the imperial army.] (]) 01:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
:I'm not "indiscriminately stuffing" the infobox as you claim. I very clearly updated the infobox to a more complete version and encouraged editors to update the body of the article so it matches up with the infobox. For someone who constantly "enforces" Misplaced Pages policies as per the edit history of this page, I would suggest you actually add information for once, rather than removing it. ] (]) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
I'm open to it, and the description of "boys-own looking" is quite correct. But it's better for someone to bring forward a specific alternative which we can use under the policies and directly compare the current picture to. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
We should change it back to a battle in accordance with what most war pages do since a map does not exist. I don't understand why we want to "change it to show more actual focus on the rebellion aspect" when Boxer movement exists. The Boxer Rebellion is not understood as a movement but as a war or intervention. I believe we should change it back. ReidLark1n (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I support making a four-quadrant infobox as a compromise with the 3 old infoxbox images plus the current one (even though it's already in Boxer movement where I personally believe it belongs). That should correct the issue raised by Parsecboy about the infobox being too long. However we need to get JArthur1984 on board since they've reverted changes to the current image which they changed it to. JArthur1984 would you support the old infobox in four-quadrants with your Boxer movement picture? ReidLark1n (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Siege of the Legations in Peking * Battle of Tientsin * Battle at Beijing Castle * Boxer Rebellion painting * Boxers in China * allied artillery
Date
1899–1901
Location
Northern China
Result
Allied victory
Belligerents
Eight-Nation Alliance
Boxers
I think this could work, I mean the top 4 are all the same style (maybe crop out the description in picture 3) but other than that they all go together. Same thing with the two pictures, they both look good together. This is just an idea, but I think it would look good. I also think the boxer Rebellion can easily get 6 pictures in there info-box.
Like I said it is just an an idea. We could make the picture or info-box. We should at least have more than one picture in the info box. LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
No infobox has to have multiple images. We should have an infobox that fulfills its purpose (key facts at a glance), and multiple images should only be entertained if they do not interfere with that, A mosaic of small color blobs would interfere in this way. Remsense诉20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I will repeat myself: we do not have to have more than one image; it is more important that the images we present are legible. Remsense诉20:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
However, referring to the above discussion, we came to an agreement that a 4 quadrant infobox was justified and probably necessary to strike a balance between "western-centric" depictions and ones which accurately depict the movement underlying the war. However, there is a distinct difference between who the Boxers were and the conflict itself.
Moreover, we need to keep in mind that the Boxer Rebellion involved numerous countries and their depictions of the conflict will inform a viewer's first impression and understanding of the page.
As it stands, and where I agree with LuxembourgLover, an image simply depicting the The Boxers does not do this page justice. We are currently over simplifying the infobox which is not its purpose. Let's get back to designing a four quadrant infobox which strikes a balance between over simplification and over complication if you are ok with that Remsense. If not, let's discuss the issue with a multipolar depiction beyond that "we do not have to have more than one image" when there is a clear expression and agreement that more than one image would enhance the page.
As a proposal to get this started, how about four quadrants - one with a Japanese depiction, one picture of the Boxers, the siege of Tientsin, and another picture depicting the Boxers or allied troops? ReidLark1n (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
As long as they're all legible I am not opposed to having four images, but I do not agree that the present state is untenable or oversimplified. Remsense ‥ 诉13:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad we're in agreement! I would design the infobox myself but I am sure someone else can do a better job.
I don't think the current state is untenable but the depiction of the Boxers also isn't great. It looks like a scan from somebody's photo album since the image appears it was cut and pasted from the look of the upper border. The numerous artist illustrations depicting the war should be legible. ReidLark1n (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the current state is a concern nor see it as oversimplified though I am happy with the proposed four picture approach representing a variety of belligerents. I am however a strong proponent of using photographs for this, as opposed to illustrations. Going back to the comment of IP who kicked off this discussion in April, the Western illustrations can be more than a bit Boy's Own, which is to say - the fanciful glory and adventure of war. I'm thinking of the Siege of the Legations illustration when I say this, have to say the other illustrations aren't quite legible to me in the six picture format. Sticking to photographs is better. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that one is good too, but could do with a crop. , This is a good start (tried to do some very rudimentary observation of the rule of thirds) but may require another iteration to show up properly in a crowded infobox. Remsense ‥ 诉17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps maybe this image could work. It's a collage with elements of both the Western Intervention and the Boxer Movement.
I think it would be an economical solution to include two images: one in the vein of the present image illustrating the rebellion as such, and one illustrating the Western intervention. Does that sound viable? Remsense ‥ 论21:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
This points to a problem: the article title is "Boxer Rebellion" (though I am among those who think it should be "Boxer Uprising") not "Boxer War." So I support the quest for at least a picture that has something to do with the Boxer Rebellion or Uprising. Maybe a map? ch (talk)
Wiki Education assignment: Representing Rebellion--China's Boxer Uprising
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahshubin, TrevorCinseros2225 (article contribs).
@HawkNightingale175, if you're actually looking at the diffs, you would see your reversion messes a lot up more than just adding commanders not mentioned in the article back into what's meant to be a summary of the article. As it stands, the infobox is about at capacity per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE—I'm sure some of the figures listed could be swapped out once the article is properly written to include them though. At this point, we should be looking at the sources and asking if each item listed constitutes a key fact about the conflict. What you shouldn't keep doing is indiscriminately stuffing it out of spite, though. Remsense ‥ 论17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not "indiscriminately stuffing" the infobox as you claim. I very clearly updated the infobox to a more complete version and encouraged editors to update the body of the article so it matches up with the infobox. For someone who constantly "enforces" Misplaced Pages policies as per the edit history of this page, I would suggest you actually add information for once, rather than removing it. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg)
.jpg)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahshubin, TrevorCinseros2225 (article contribs).