| Revision as of 21:55, 28 November 2010 editLevellend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users10,934 edits →the Kansu Braves received popular support from the Chinese populace← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:57, 28 November 2010 edit undoBinesi (talk | contribs)121 edits →the Kansu Braves received popular support from the Chinese populaceNext edit → | ||
| Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
| :::::::::: By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. ] (]) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | :::::::::: By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. ] (]) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::: somehow "Дунгане", magically warps into "chin1976". I'd like to know what kind of computer you were using that changes ] into the latin alphabet. The "Atlantic monthly" reference was , not only that, the Atlantic monthly refers to the '''pre siege''' situation in Beijing, when the Boxers and Kansu braves were running around, not the situation '''during''' the siege, which was when they began to besiege the legations. The references which '''were present'''- say '''nothing''' about looting, and they refer to the situation '''during the siege'''.] (]) 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | ::::::::::: somehow "Дунгане", magically warps into "chin1976". I'd like to know what kind of computer you were using that changes ] into the latin alphabet. The "Atlantic monthly" reference was , not only that, the Atlantic monthly refers to the '''pre siege''' situation in Beijing, when the Boxers and Kansu braves were running around, not the situation '''during''' the siege, which was when they began to besiege the legations. The references which '''were present'''- say '''nothing''' about looting, and they refer to the situation '''during the siege'''.] (]) 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::: So you wrote... ''somehow "Дунгане", magically warps into "chin1976"'' - what? You couldn't understand what I said? Please stop talking about this chin1976, it's getting tired and pointless and has nothing to do with facts in this article. OK, so now I see you are just putting up a smoke screen. First you accuse me of slander and now you don't? You want to complain that I didn't cite the reference which were already cited in the page elsewhere? OK, that's valid. Now explain to me how that is slander or false information? You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? ] (]) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::there are two things you do that are not tolerated according to wiki policy, removing '''cited''' information for no reason, and misrepresenting existing sources, if another source mentions something, you '''add''' it along with the original information and source, you don't delete the original information. And about the looting, you just wrote a blanket statement that they looted, and didn't note that they only killed christians because they considered them to be potential spies.] (]) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | ::::::::::there are two things you do that are not tolerated according to wiki policy, removing '''cited''' information for no reason, and misrepresenting existing sources, if another source mentions something, you '''add''' it along with the original information and source, you don't delete the original information. And about the looting, you just wrote a blanket statement that they looted, and didn't note that they only killed christians because they considered them to be potential spies.] (]) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:57, 28 November 2010
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boxer Rebellion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boxer Rebellion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
 | Boxer Rebellion received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 7, 2006 and September 7, 2007. |
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". Appletons' annual cyclopædia and register of important events of ..., Volume 5 This was not a news report or journalism.] The Banner troops attempted to clear away the boxers and kansu braves who still held the legations invested, and several encounters took place in the streets Дунгане (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Misleading statement contributed by User:Дунгане
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. "
Anyone who is familiar with Qing Dynasty 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. Arilang 01:16, 17 November 2010 (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 ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" edits 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.Дунгане (talk) 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.Дунгане (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please answer my question, Дунгане
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. "
In referring to the above statement made by Дунгане, what I said was:" In this statement written by User:Дунгане, the term "Chinese" was used twice, which may confuse some everyday readers. ". In case Дунгане did not, or could not understand the issue I raised, let me put it in high school English :The phrase "the supreme commander of the Chinese forces, Ronglu" should be "the supreme commander of the attacking Imperial Army, Ronglu", I know there were Han Chinese in the attacking soldiers, who came from the Imperial Army, not "Chinese forces". The second phrase "was pro foreign himself and acted in a way that prevented Chinese success. ", again, it is confusing, "Chinese success", as everyday readers may begin to ask, which "Chinese"? Han Chinese? Oversea Chinese? Chinese is too general a term to be used here. Arilang 06:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Its strange how you weren't able to see the section i created hours before you made this comment. I posted my response at 01:58, 17 November 2010, yet your comment now posted at 06:41, 17 November 2010 comes over four hours later. My response was in that section, yet you deliberately pretended not to see it, and posted another "Question" up here in this section.Дунгане (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- User:Дунгане has certainly spend huge amount of time and effort in reading all my past editing records, I would take it as a compliment towards my contribution on Misplaced Pages, which began in Sep 2008, about 26 months ago, and during this times, many editors offered me a helping hand to improve my writing skill as well as my English. I wish to take the opportunity to say a big "Thank You" to all those who help me along the way.
I welcome any criticisium on my work, and since English is not my native language, I try very hard not to write Chinglish here, after all, this is English wikipedia we are working on. I am not very sure what is User:Дунгане native language, since User:Дунгане is saying nothing on his(or her) user homepage, but looking at his pigin English, all I can say is, User:Дунгане does need a lot of help from other more experienced editors. Arilang 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Its very clear that the reason your edits were deleted were not only because of their poor grammar and spelling, but because of your blatant racist content added into the article and Anti Boxer POV, without any sources. trying to blame racism and insults inserted into the article on mispelling isn't going to help you. If you added that Manchus were "Barbarian", and boxers were "savages", on chinese wikipedia, your edits would get reverted as fast as I can blink my eye. The only thing i have done wrong in terms of my english is mispelling, because i type too fast, i do not have grammatical errors. on the other hand, you constantly butcher your english grammar so bad, you are doing it right now- "I wish to take the opportunity to say a big "Thank You" to all those who help me along the way." should be, "I wish to take the opportunity to say a big "Thank You" to all of those who helped me along the way.".
- It appears that you have resorted to personal insults, since i defeated all your false arguments on this talk page. I disproved your assertion about all Manchus being xenophobix, i disproved your claim that the chinese army was primtive and had no modern weapons, i disproved your claim that the foreigners easily beat the chinese army, i disproved your claim that "Chinese" is not a correct term to label the imperial army.
- Therefore, you have reverted to sophomoric insults regarding my spelling, while ignoring your own horrific grammar AND mispelling, and you continue to remain unapologetic about inserting racism into the articles.Дунгане (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Were Manchus "Barbarians"?
Дунгане said: "If you added that Manchus were "Barbarian", and boxers were "savages", on chinese wikipedia, your edits would get reverted as fast as I can blink my eye." Bad luck that you are on English Misplaced Pages, not Chinese Misplaced Pages, which seems to be more suitable for you, where Self-censorship allegations are for real. There are a lot of 50 Cent Party members in Chinese Misplaced Pages, if you happen to know some, you may encourage some of them to come over to try editing in the real English Misplaced Pages for a change.
On the question whether Manchus were "Barbarians" or not, my suggestion for Дунгане is, please read more books, for example:
- The rise and splendour of the Chinese Empire by René Grousset.
| “ | Page 279. The manner in which the Manchus captured the imperial throne had every appearance of a sleight-of-hand trick. With a cleverness that was most surprising for barbarians, Manchu regents... | ” |
And who else did call Manchus "Barabrians", well none other than John King Fairbank himself in:
- "China's response to the West: a documentary survey, 1839-1923"
| “ | Page 268. The Manchus may be considered as the great conglomeration of the eastern barbarian tribes, and they can also be considered as the great conclusion of the eastern barbarian tribes. During the last fifty years the sinification of the Manchus has advanced full speed, until the 1911 revolution, after which every Manchu was capped with a Chinese name. | ” |
- New Qing imperial history: the making of inner Asian empire at Qing Chengde 作者：James A. Millward
| “ | Page 36. Kangxi-a barbarian Manchu in some people's eyes, but nonetheless emperor of China- | ” |
- Asia in western and world history: a guide for teaching By：Ainslie Thomas Embree,Carol Gluck
| “ | Since the Manchu emperors themselves were unwilling to dissociate dynasty legitimacy from the ethnic identity of the ruling house, it made it all the more easier for "secret societies" and other such illegal groups to advocate Ming restorationism on the basic that the Qing ruling house was more Manchu, alien and barbarian, than it was Chinese, Confucian and imperial. | ” |
- Korea and East Asia: the story of a Phoenix By：Kenneth B. Lee
| “ | Page 112. The Koreans on the penisula, who always called the Manchus oranke(barbarians), considered any agreement with the Manchus demeaning. | ” |
OK, I shall ask Дунганеa question: "Were Manchus Barbarians?" Arilang 07:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Sources describe Imperial Army as Chinese
page 19 of this linkДунгане (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't even need to explain why Arilang1234 is hiding his "question" up there. My answer was down here already, no doubt he saw it, and refused to acknowledged it, or the second possibility is that he is putting the question before he made the comment insulting by english speaking ability, because i pointed out that i disproved all his original research on the talk page, and he wants to make it seem as though he had actually asked a question before.Дунгане (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sources here and in the article described the Qing dynasty side as the "chinese" side, vis a vis the Western Allied 8 nation alliance.Дунгане (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- in Addition, let me point out that chinese is an ENGLISH word, which was used by Englishmen around the Boxer rebellion to describe both Han and Manchu. Arilang1234 conviniently switched his position twice, originally saying that Chinese only meant han, and should be specific, then saying "Chinese is too general a term to be used here"07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Дунгане should read more books, in order to improve his English
Дунгане, can you tell me what is the dictionary definition of "sinification"?
China's response to the West: a documentary survey, 1839-1923 By：Ssu-yü Teng,John King Fairbank
| “ | Page 268. During the last fifty years the sinification of the Manchus has advanced full speed, until the 1911 revolution, after which every Manchu was capped with a Chinese name. | ” |
Response to User:Arilang1234's slurs against Manchus
Germans called jews "untermensch" (meaning subhuman", so according to Arilang1234 we have to add this racial slur to every article on jews, since Arilang1234 thinks that the opinions of ancient writers should be inserted into the article, he also probably thinks that Nazi theories on race should also be inserted into articles on other races. I am being highly sarcastic here, i don't even think this comment of mine is nesesary since sane editors know that calling ethnic groups by slurs and insults is against wikipedia policy.Дунгане (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Sun Yetsen called Manchus "Barbarians"
China's Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839-1923 By John King Fairbank. http://books.google.com/books?id=0maVJuCh78oC&pg=PA268&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=7G_jTLXoC42muQPOyujGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Manchu%20Emperors%20as%20barbarian&f=false
- The Manifesto of The Tung-Meng-Hui, 1905
| “ | By order of the Military Government, on the ___day,___month, ___year of Tien-yun, the Commander-in-Chief of the Chinese National Army proclaims the purposes and platform of the Military Government to the people of the nation:
Now the National Army has established the Military Government, which aims to cleanse away two hundred and sixty years of barbarous filth, restore our four-thousand-year-old fatherland, and plan for the welfare of the four hundred million people... |
” |
According to JK Fairbank, Sun Yetsen and his revolutionaries did call Manchus "Barbarians", Дунгане, are you happy now? Arilang 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Sun Yatsen, was also a pro soviet revolutionary, whatever he said on manchus is his opinion, and should not be inserted as fact on wikipedia articles, or even used in comments on talk pages, because it violates manners, etiquette, and displays POV against the Manchu ethnic group, so using "barbarian" to describe a people violates wikipedia policy. Not only have you used that adjective, you used it in a demeaning manner, accusing all manchus of being violent and genocidal.Дунгане (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Chinese Christians were originally Bandits who converted to Christianity to avoid punishment- And Western Powers wanted to seize Chinese territory from the start, whether the boxers were suppressed or not
Quote from a Columbia University Source- [http://www.cmunny.org/cmunny06/Boxer.Rebellion.BG.pdf "Yu Xian was the local Manchu official in Shantung province under Li Pingheng when widespread attacks on Christians by a group known as the Big Swords began taking place in 1896. Discovering that the Big Swords were not anti-Manchu and impressed by their success in suppressing bandits, which helped the already over-extended provincial army, Yu Xian began secretly recruiting the Big Swords into a special unit of the provincial army. After the Big Swords killed a leader of one of the leading bandit groups, his followers converted to Catholicism and the Catholics began a campaign alleging the Big Swords of damage to their churches. This eventually led to the burning of churches and the sacking of Christian villages by Big Swords in Shantung. Yu Xian settled the matter by beheading the two most prominent Big Sword leaders, but letting everyone else off the hook."]
The Big Sword Society was used by the Manchu governor Yuxian to destroy and suppress bandits. Because foreigners gave legal protection to chinese christians, bandits converted to christianity to avoid punishment from government authorities. This is why Yuxian set the Big Swords loose on christians in shandong, since they were bandits and criminals.
Jiang Kai, an ANTI Boxer magistrate, noted that Christian converts lied and filed false lawsuits
even before the Boxer rebellion started in 1896, the Germans were looking for an excuse to provoke an incident to seize chinese land. The German Kaiser Wilhelm was delighted that the german priests were killed, calling it a "Splended opportunity" to seize land from chinaДунгане (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is pushing a single viewpoint and needs to be revised.
I'm reading a significant pro Chinese, anti "foreign" slant in this article. It is to the point that this article has become useless as a reference. There is a lot of effort expended in this article to prove how many foreigners where killed and how great various Chines forces where. There is also an assertion that the foreign forces only survived because of intervention by a Chinese general (whether this is true or not I won't comment - the point being this article has a very significant neutrality problem). Also there is a number of classic English grammar errors usually made by mainland Chinese which has me suspecting - has this article been hijacked and corrupted by 五毛党(wu mao dang)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.63.176 (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with 208.64.63.176, someone has been writing Chinese High School Text book here on Misplaced Pages with bad English. Arilang 14:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Mass Vandalism by ip 208.64.63.176
irrelevant rant thread here filed by 208.64.63.176, considering the fact that every single referenced used in the article is by a western author from western university. I would like him to point out where any chinese sources where used.
- You mention "western" like it means something. A reference is a reference. As long as it is verifiable that is all that matters. The main point is that you accurately quote or paraphrase the reference and do not twist it to give your own personal meaning. Binesi (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that our Friend Binesi, who appears to be the same person as ip 208.54.63.176 does not understand that he just accused me of being a communist agent. i was pointing out that i didnt use communist sources.Дунгане (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
208.64.63.176 edited the article, claiming to correct the user, "chin1976"'s bad english, in this edit- "Corrected chin1976's bad English and corrected prose to focus on facts given in cited references" yet anyone can see that User:chin1976 doesn't exist. Also I see no evidence of inocorrect english being used in the edits 208.64.63.176 reverted, would he mind pointing them out?Дунгане (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
in this edit, 208.64.63.176 removes cited information stating that all the forces except the Japanese commited rape and pillage, which was supported by the reference here, which pointed out specifically that all the forces except japan engaged in rape and pillage.
In this edit, 208.64.63.176 removed "but there is no evidence of rape", yet the refence used in the aritcle, says that for all the boxer atrocities there had been no incidents of chinese rape
Our friend 208.64.63.176 also struck again, he changed a section signifigantly, changing a previous paragraph, which was referenced, to The Imperial Army Muslim Kansu braves additionally slaughtered Christians near the legations while looting indiscriminately. The reference used, "The Atlantic monthly, Volume 113", pointed out that the kansu braves had tea with their hosts and apologized for intruding, and only took away several thousand dollars of valuables without killing any of their hosts, as long as they were not christian The reference clearly points at the the Kansu Braves spared non christians, and did not engage in "looting indiscriminately"
208.64.63.176 changed "General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Eight-Nation Alliance. They were put into the rear division, and attacked the legations relentlessly" to ". General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Allies. However they where put into the rear division and mostly engaged in pillage and looting." 208.64.63.176 claimed that "Corrected to match information given in citation. Corrected capitalization" yet none of the refences supplied, say that the Kansu braves engaged in pillaging and looting, only that they had attacked the legations.Дунгане (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Just in case this wasn't clear
Restoring the blatant vandalism i mentioned above, as Gaius Octavius Princeps did, will not be tolerated. an admin warned 208.64.63.176 that his edits constituted vandalism.Дунгане (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- also i would mind if Gaius explains who this ficticious User:Arhyahe is.Дунгане (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously? Ravensfire (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Writing that the Kansu Braves had tea with their victims is really twisting the reference to paint a rosy picture Дунгане. The reference clearly states that they where looting generally and that the victim in question was spared only after he cooperated fully and even offered to make them tea. For his efforts his family was spared the sword but his home was still looted and they had the gall to drink his tea too afterward. This is general looting, not looting of Christians only as he was not a Christian as evidenced by his altar. There is nothing in this article that says they only targeted Christians even though that may have been their primary purpose. Please remember the purpose of Misplaced Pages. It's not for you to revise history, and the article is so slanted right now and overly focussed on a bit player Kansu Braves faction that it would make most people suspicious. Binesi (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is clear that the Beijing population in general supported and respected the Kansu braves- "In spite of these deeds of violence, even intelligent people still believed that the Kansu soldiery were a tower of defence for China, and would be more than able to repel any number of foreign troops"Дунгане (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- the foreign protests against dong's troops had of course convinced many chinese that these were precisely the men needed to protect the capitalДунгане (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This article contains many errors
Much of this article is misleading and worthless for research. A very long list of errors could be compiled, but I will list only four to illustrate my point: the misleading or mistaken captions on four of the paintings used to illustrate the section of the article called “Imperial Army Muslim Kansu Braves.”
The errors in the captioning of these four illustrations are compounded by their use in several different articles about events during the Boxer Rebellion, thus corrupting virtually everything written on Misplaced Pages about the Boxer Rebellion.
1. The caption for the first illustration says “Dong Fuxiang’s troops laid mines which blew up a Russian paddle Steamer at Shanhaiguan, inflicting many casualties upon the Russians.” The source given for this caption is apparently Jane Elliott, page 204, but she says only that the Chinese used “torpedos against the Russian steamers at Shanhaiguan.” Thus, the actual sinking of a Russian steamer at Shanhaiguan is not confirmed by the reference. If the sinking of a Russian steamer causing Russian casualties cannot be confirmed by a reliable reference then this illustration should be removed.
2. The caption for the second illustration says: "Dong Fuxiang’s troops attack on the Dagu (Taku) forts. News of the temporarily successful attack led the Dowager Empress to declare war and decree Imperial backing for the Boxers….” It was not the Chinese who attack Dagu; it was the foreign navies. And the entire battle to take Dagu was over in 6 hours. Thus, there was no “temporarily successful attack” on Dagu by Chinese forces. Likewise, there is no evidence that Dong Fuxiang and his soldiers were involved in the Battle of the Dagu Forts. Thus, the caption of the illustration might read correctly: “The Allied navies attacked and captured the Dagu Forts on June 17, 1900. A misleading report of victory in the battle submitted by Chinese officials influenced the Dowager Empress’s decision to declare war and decree Imperial backing for the Boxers.”
3. The caption for the third illustration says: “Dong Fuxiang’s Muslim forces defeated the Allied army at the Battle of Beicang on August 1.” But the Battle of Beicang took place on August 5, 1900 and it was an allied victory. Thus, a correct caption for this illustration might say, “Allied forces defeated the Chinese army at the Battle of Beicang on August 5, 1900.”
4. The caption for the fourth illustration says: “Dong Fuxiang’s Muslim troops gained victory over the Western forces at Tianjin.” That’s misleading. After a month of siege and skirmishing, the Western and Japanese forces defeated the Chinese army and captured Tianjin. Thus, the corrected caption might say, “The allied armies defeated the Chinese and captured the walled city of Tianjin on July 14, 1900 after a difficult and bloody battle.”
I would also suspect, although I’m not an expert on Chinese commanders, that the role of Dong Fuxiang in all these battles is exaggerated. He commanded only a small percentage of the Chinese troops who were involved in resisting the foreign armies. Plus it's hard to imagine how he and his troops could been in all these places, plus besieging the Legations in Beijing, in such a short time period. Beijing is 100 miles distant from Dagu and Shanhaiguan -- and the railroad was cut.
These mistakes – and many others in this article, and in other articles about the Boxer Rebellion – should be corrected. I would do so, except that deletions of inaccurate text are undone and the inaccurate text re-posted. Smallchief 14:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I do agree with user Smallchief's comment:"the role of Dong Fuxiang in all these battles is exaggerated. ", and it looks like there are "half baked" editors who would do anything to try to tell readers how important the “Imperial Army Muslim Kansu Braves.” were. Arilang 20:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
IF you have a problem with errors take it up with the source used
nothing in the source indicated that the information was false or true, etc., the Nianhua pictures on fathom did not have much text on them, so most of the written content was by Frances Wood of the British library, and when he wrote " Encouraging news of this temporarily successful attack", he gave no indication to the date, or to whether it was false. identifying this with another battle in another source, and saying that its false would be original research. The correct course of action according to wikipedia policy would be to determinte if this is a WP:RS (reliable source), if its not, then delete the information, and replace it with "This nianhua by an anynonymous author who did not view the actual battle depicts the alleged events in XXXX battle", or delete them altogether. As i noted already, using the other sources describing the battle of tianjin, which talk about the 8 nation alliance victory, and using them to say that the Dowager empress received a false report, would be original reasearch,(WP:OR), due to the fact that the source didn't mention anything about a report, regardless of whether that happened or not.21:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleaned up by more dispassionate editors. I will try to help.
I agree that the Nianhua pictures should be removed as they don't reflect the consensus of actual events and they tend to confuse and slant this article to read more like a propaganda piece for a small faction within the overall Boxer movement. The Chinese version is actually far more neutral and useful for research at this point! As this currently stands it comes off as a general attack on Chinese Christians and foreigners and a glorification of Chinese Muslims under Dong Fuxiang. However both religions in China are equally of foreign origin and neither is more or less valid in Chinese culture and history. Also both sides of this conflict had issues which they felt where legitimate. This subject needs to be treated with neutrality by those with a less personal attachment.
I can understand your intention here Дунгане, and I sympathize. It is apparent that you have a strong personal connection to this topic. If you want to paint the Kansu Braves in a positive light and illustrate their contributions to this conflict it should be done in a more subtle and neutral manner that doesn't leave this article permanently flagged as biased. Otherwise your efforts are in vain as it is unlikely that anyone will use this article for research or let it influence their opinion when it is flagged as such. You have contributed a number of useful references and it is time to let editors with a more dispassionate outlook clean this article up. Please refrain from getting into a edit war with them. Binesi (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
the Kansu Braves received popular support from the Chinese populace
- It is clear that the Beijing population in general supported and respected the Kansu braves- "In spite of these deeds of violence, even intelligent people still believed that the Kansu soldiery were a tower of defence for China, and would be more than able to repel any number of foreign troops"
- the foreign protests against dong's troops had of course convinced many chinese that these were precisely the men needed to protect the capital
- "Even if he and his muslims soldiers were greatly feared, certainly by the inhabitants of Beijing, his name resonated with heorism after the death of General Nie Shicheng and the withdrawal of generals ma yukun and song qing"Дунгане (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- And you have a point here somewhere? Finding references to support almost any viewpoint is no great feat. My comments stand.
- Look - you are a good researcher and have contributed a number of useful references to this article. However it's time to bring this article into the mainstream and out of this increasingly singular and tunneled out point of view. Trust me, if your viewpoint has any validity to this article the plain facts will speak for themselves. This excessive coloring is bordering on (or well past) obnoxious. I have been using Misplaced Pages for years and years and this is the first article that I have read that has actually got me motivated enough to create an account and actively help protect Misplaced Pages's neutrality standards. Binesi (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The fact is, that the Boxer war was about foreign missionaries and alleged chinese "Christians" (actually bandits who converted to christianity) were aggresively asserting power and territorial concessions to seize from China, the response was that the secret society known as the Boxers began attacking foreigners, and the foreigners used it as an excuse to march their army to invade china, yet the Chinese Imperial forces displayed absolutely no intention of destroying either the legations or committing any sort of massacre, the article was severely slanted toward a pro foreign POV and how the Boxers and Chinese forces were pure evil before i started making corrections.
- Yet you do not seem to want to contribute positively, instead, your ip address accused me of making "english errors" as if i was from mainland china and then concluding that i was a "Wu mao dang" (50 cent party), which is a form of communist agent. We do not take such attacks lightly on wikipedia. None of my positions closely resemble anything like what the CCP says on the Boxer war, the CCP accuses Dowager Empress Cixi and the court of being corrupt and reactionary, yet i am correcting POV against them and portraying them in a neutral manner.Дунгане (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, what I wrote is still in this thread. There is no reason you need to change it to become a personal attack on you instead of being the general reflection on this article it is. Did you actually read it or just interpret it? Also - is this _your_ article? You are not a "we". You are no more Misplaced Pages than anyone else. And thanks, I know quite well what the CCP says as I live in China and have read these textbooks. I also can recognize Chinese ESL grammar pretty well. Now that aside, I am not against you and have no interest in "attacks" on anyone. I want to help you and other editors get this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it (English grammar unfortunately included). As you saw fit to abuse the administrative process to claim my edits where "vandalism" I have registered an account and made myself fully accountable. I will ask you to forgive me as I get up to speed on all of Misplaced Pages's editing requirements. It really is a shame that it becomes necessary for other editors to try to fix this article. Binesi (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- We is the community of all wikipedia editors, upon whose agreement on content is on what wikipedia is based- see Misplaced Pages:Consensus. My native language is not chinese, nor is it any other language besides english. And even if i made alleged "errors characteristic of chinese speaking people", singapore and taiwan are two places which contain native chinese speaking populations, neither of which are under CCP control. You accuse me of "abusing" the administrative process, yet your edits were not mere mistakes, you lied in several of your edits, claiming you "Corrected chin1976's bad English", chin 1976 doesn't exist, and in these two edits you removed information you didn't like, with no justification at all. this is a pretty bad start if you want me to assume good faith. You also added slander in the article in this edit- saying that the Kansu braves were engaged in "pillage and looting", yet none of the references used supported that. Its pretty obvious that its not " Misplaced Pages's editing requirements.", which you were confused with. These edits were plain vandalism and POV twisting, and you still don't acknowledge that.Дунгане (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to feel you speak for everyone. This is odd, but ok - lets move on. If your native language was English you would probably use correct capitalization - but that's ok too - its my personal observation and of no importance to this article. Also, I don't know why you keep talking about the CCP. You seem to have a negative opinion about it? - but again, ok, whatever - we can continue to move on. About my "lie" as you claim, I explained each edit as clearly as I thought was necessary. I don't see you specifically responding to most of the edits you undid. Why? You have nothing to say? Also, yes, I did actually say the Kansu Braves engaged in pillage and looting which was what was stated in the reference. In The Atlantic monthly, Volume 113 it reads "Even this exemplary punishment did not abate their fury, for (the) next day another large contingent started looting again, and in due course approached my house.". He goes on to explain he gave evidence he was not a Christian but he was looted regardless. This is actually indiscriminate looting. The looters did not discriminate Christians from non Christians. You dare accuse me of a lie when there is direct and easily accessed evidence against your claim? Oh, and about chin1976 - it was my first try at editing and I didn't know how to read who made the original post. I'm getting a bit better at this editing stuff hopefully? If not, abuse the heck out of me if you like and I will do my best to improve. ;-) Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- somehow "Дунгане", magically warps into "chin1976". I'd like to know what kind of computer you were using that changes Cyrillic into the latin alphabet. The "Atlantic monthly" reference was nowhere in your edit, not only that, the Atlantic monthly refers to the pre siege situation in Beijing, when the Boxers and Kansu braves were running around, not the situation during the siege, which was when they began to besiege the legations. The references which were present- say nothing about looting, and they refer to the situation during the siege.Дунгане (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you wrote... somehow "Дунгане", magically warps into "chin1976" - what? You couldn't understand what I said? Please stop talking about this chin1976, it's getting tired and pointless and has nothing to do with facts in this article. OK, so now I see you are just putting up a smoke screen. First you accuse me of slander and now you don't? You want to complain that I didn't cite the reference which were already cited in the page elsewhere? OK, that's valid. Now explain to me how that is slander or false information? You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- there are two things you do that are not tolerated according to wiki policy, removing cited information for no reason, and misrepresenting existing sources, if another source mentions something, you add it along with the original information and source, you don't delete the original information. And about the looting, you just wrote a blanket statement that they looted, and didn't note that they only killed christians because they considered them to be potential spies.Дунгане (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation by User:Binesi
This user Binesi does not appear to understand copyright rules on wiki. In this edit he copied directly from the book "Dragon lady: the life and legend of the last empress of China"
- Дунгане please do not slander me or use this as a pretense to undo changes you do not agree with. I did not make a direct copy of this book but I actually did do a poor job of paraphrasing which I am quite willing to improve. Binesi (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is clear that User:Binesi does not understand what close paraphrasing is, even when they don't look exactly alike, its still copyvio, see Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasingДунгане (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
First, we cannot copy any content that has been previously published outside of Misplaced Pages unless we can prove that this content is public domain or we can verify that has been licensed compatibly for our use. (See copyright policy and our site's Terms of Use. It doesn't matter if the content does not bear a copyright notice; under the U.S. law that governs Misplaced Pages, content is automatically protected by copyright. You are allowed to use brief excerpts of non-free content, but only if you clearly mark these by quotation marks or block quotations and only if you use them for good reason. Some reasons can be found at the non-free content guidelines.
Otherwise, all content that you place on Misplaced Pages must be written completely in your own words. You cannot follow too closely on other sources for fear of creative a derivative work. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism"..Дунгане (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Дунгане, please remember WP:AGF. Be helpful, not petty.
The information above could be contained in a link and not copy and pasted into the talk page. This only strikes me as pretentious.
After reading the source article again I would agree I ended up using too many of the same words when clarifying this paragraph. It would have been far more helpful if you would improve this sentence instead undoing in mass the numerous improvements I have made to this article. In any case I will revise it and repost. Binesi (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
And Binesi is confusing locations
It appears Binesi confused Pingyuan County, Shandong, with Pingyuan County, Guangdong in this edit. If you look at the source, it says Shandong several times before it mentions the falsified lawsuits.Дунгане (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will correct this and reinstate the improved paragraph. The amount of time you spent writing this was a great deal longer than it would have taken for you to correct the single word. Binesi (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The Chinese forces never wanted to attack the legations, it was the foreigners who started the firing
The Dowager Empress actually did not even order the Chinese Imperial troops to conduct a siege, on the contrary, she ordered them to protect the foreigners in the legations, it was Prince Duan who led the Boxers in, for them to loot his enemies within the Imperial court and the foreigners, and in fact, when the Boxers originally were let into the city and went on a looting rampage, against both the foreign and the Chinese Imperial forces, the Imperial authority kicked them out, the old Boxers were sent outside Beijing to halt the invading foreign armies, while young Boxers were absorbed into the Muslim Kansu army. Grant Hayter-Menzies, Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling. Hong Kong University Press. p. 88. ISBN 9622098819. Retrieved 2010-10-31.
The Chinese army only fired several firecrackers multiple times at the legations to make it seem as though they were pressing a siege, while they were not. The commander of all the Forces, Ronglu, tried to negotiate for a ceasefire, but it was the foreigners who opened fire on Dong Fuxiang's army. The foreigners in the legations opened fire on Chinese forces without provocation, killing numerous people, the Muslim army was forced to defend itself by returning fire. When the Chinese forces built notices and and sent messengers notifying the foreigners that the Imperial chinese forces were going to protect them, and open up communications, and to cease fire, the foreigners in the legations responded by shooting and killing the messengers and refused to make peace. It was the British minister who dragged Chinese Christians with him into the Su Wang Fu palace after removing Su Wang Fu from the palace. Grant Hayter-Menzies, Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling. Hong Kong University Press. p. 89. ISBN 9622098819. Retrieved 2010-10-31.
The only soldiers who wanted to press a siege, were Dong Fuxiang's muslim warriors, who were allied to the anti foreign Prince Duan, who had originally allowed the Boxers to come into the city. Ronglu directed his own forces to instead protect the foreigners in the legations, per the Dowager Empress's decree, and only fired face shots and firecrackers to make it seem as though they were fighting. Grant Hayter-Menzies, Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling. Hong Kong University Press. p. 90. ISBN 9622098819. Retrieved 2010-10-31.Дунгане (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Again with "Dong Fuxiang's muslim warriors"??? ...Seriously - there is so much more to this event than your hobby horse interest. Maybe you should write a separate article? Binesi (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Muslim "fighters", would constitute copying directly from the source. I use synonyms as much as possible to avoid copyvio.Дунгане (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- Start-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- Start-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- Start-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- Start-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Start-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- Start-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- Start-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2007)