Talk:Boxer Rebellion

Missing Causes

I think that there needs to be a Cause section added to the article, as there is only a result and event section. A discussion in the article of the events leading up to the rebellion and of long/short causes, seem to be an important topic that is missing.

---

No deep discussion. The cause, including the politics of Qing Dynasty, and its consequences are missing. Wshun

Also missing is some explanation as to the beginning of the movement, i.e. that it was more directed at Chinese converts, and not primarily at the foreign presence at first. 84.154.5.131 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

---

A good source for at least some information about the "causes" might be "Late Victorian Holocausts" by Mike Davis.

PinYin

Why do people continue to use old Romanization systems for Chinese? who doesn't use PinYin now? The UN does. i.e. Peking should be Beijing Tsingdao should be Qingdao Pa Kuo Lien Jun should be Ba Guo Lian Jun etc. etc.... Spettro9 (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)spettro9

probably because postal names, WG or Yale were more common in 1900

Pinyin is relatively new so most names are from non pinyin sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.203.57 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

As a propaganda piece for western imperialism, this is an excellent article. As an objective portrayal of the truth, it fails miserably. It paints a picture of a the evil Chinese for no apparent reason murdering the benevolent westerners who apparently were there handing out flowers. The truth is that Japan, the European powers, and the US, with a total lack of regard for Chinese sovereignty, divided up China among themselves for the purpose of exploitation. Without adequate coverage of this background context, this article creates a false impression. If this were about a western nation, or about the US, half the article would be about the injustices leading up to the rebellion, and the other half would be about the patriotic and noble defense of one's nation. This article also emphasizes the poor Christians being murdered angle. Imagine if Muslim nations today were sending missionaries to the US to educate heathen Americans about the inferiority of their culture and religion. This was the attitude of the Christian missionaries in China, who went to a foreign nation on a mission of cultural destruction. The Chinese viewpoint of the missionaries, and validity of that viewpoint, receives zero coverage. This article needs to rewritten only this time with an underlying assumption that the Chinese are just as entitled to self determination as any caucasian nation. Dentify 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree! In addtion to the problem pointed out by Dentify, not enough mention seems to be given of the opium problem. IMHO a major factor in the Boxer rebellion was the way in which Western powers were using their power to ensure the continued massive sale and distribution of opium, which was causing widespread damage (to infrastructure, social cohesion, destruction of familes, corruption, and *immense* loss of life) in China. Put it this way...if the government in the USA were weak and the drug producing and distribution nations and cartels of the world today were strong they might demand the freedom to sell drugs in the USA, and have a weak US government "sign" such agreements. In this situation, some US citizens, or "US boxers," might rise up in violent and "zenophobic" rebellion. If such US citizens lynched say, mafia or say, Columbians in the streets of US cities would they be portrayed in the manner of this article? The US government has in fact invaded at least one country for being implicit in sales of drugs to the US, but the US government are rarely portrayed as being as agressive as the Boxers, who were fighting for the drug-free integrity of their own country, on their own soil. The current article seems to portray the Boxers as a bunch of savages that had no sane right or reason to be violent about anything. IMHO China being *seriously* abused at the time. People in China had good reason for being ferociously angry. --Timtak (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Neither side should be given preference, each side should be equal weight, each side should be projected in a neutral point of view.

If you believe part of the article violates any of these, discuss it in a way that does not push one side or the other, discuss how to improve the article, and via consensus on this talk page, rewrite the section in question in a manor that advocates neither POV, but presents the facts from verifiable reliable sourced references. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that opium should be mentioned. The only mention that the "boxer rebellion" has any relationship to opium at the moment is (incredibly) in the rejection of the suggestion that the opium wars were the fault of the western powers. In a sense the only time that the other point of view gets mentioned is in its rejection. Or there is a rejection of an unmentioned point of view. --218.223.197.215 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I happened to find this page; glanced it through; found to my surprise no reference to the opium war whatsoever; searched in vain the article for "opium", but did find it in these paragraphs in the talk page.

The exterritorial rights are mentioned, though; and, as far as I remember, they were a direct result of the opium war.

Notice, that the article about the opium war does mention the boxer rebellium as being one of the later uprisings caused by resentments fed by the aftermath of the opium wars. However, the boxer rebellion article does not seem to contain anything at all in this direction. There is no possibility to critiscise the "chinese side" for undue weight, if it is totally absent.

There is also a rather strange attitude to consider the discussion of connections between the opium war and the boxer rebellion in terms of "the westerner's side" and "the Chinese side". The article attempts to present both the view that the boxer's were crazy xenophobes and the view that they were anti-imperialist heroes; and this has some merits, since this more or less seems to be the "Western" and the "Chinese" official standpoints afterwards. However, one should as far as possible treat the actual causes (and academic disputes over the actual causes) as separate from what impact the interpretations of the rebellion made on later development.

I'll at least try to enable readers to find discussion elsewhere about the connections, by adding a "See also". JoergenB (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion the relationship of the Opium War to the Boxer Rebellion, isn't as importance as the grievences listed in the article that the Boxers had which lead to the Boxer Rebellion. That being said I would not be against it, as long as it is done in a manor that neither advocates for the Boxers, or preaches against the 8 nation alliance, see WP:NEU.

As for the stangeness of the way the acticle is written in regardes to the Boxers, the reason why it is the way it is appears to be the attempt to give neither side undue weight and to be inclusive of both views. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ask Bingdian about your textbooks, similar to Japan lol;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.203.57 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

- I completely agree. The article's bias needs to be fixed to complete objectivity, or the Chinese percpective of the issue should be provided. -

--I feel that this piece is biased, but not from an american point of view (which also is evident in the strange language and organization- whats with the section "short term causes" it just lists a book! what? is the book the cause? if so what did it say? again the title including the phrase "foreign devils" does not make it seem like an antichinese bias. the language is not encyclopedic, and over all this whole page would be better seved by a copy paste job from a 9th grade history book (provided you get permission from the publisher, of course ;) -b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.232 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that Ministry of Information for the Chinese Communist Party monitors this page to give use the party line. At worst this article could use more prespective from the Boxer's POV but pointing out the atrocities committed by them during the uprising hardly counts as propaganda. I'm sure you'd prefer your own one sided version of history where the brave Boxers had to kill the Christian Missionaries before they destroyed China.JDelp (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See, that's the kind of attitude that keeps people ignorant of the Chinese perspective. Any feeling of disagreement, and it is instantly the 'Communist Party Line', Communist propaganda, lies by dirty communist Chinese. No mention of affiliation or origin, and the accusation of being a communist comes up, who's the one spouting propaganda here?. The inability to separate Chinese people from a government. This is pretty much the modern extension of the kind of superior attitude Westerners had on China.

It is rather disingenuous to speak of “The Chinese Perspective” as if there is only one. In fact the Chinese were rather divided at the time, and continue to be, about the Boxers and the roll of the Imperial court. Several ministers were executed for questioning the boxers, and many provincial lords refused to support them at the time.

Early in the uprising the Boxers were seen as little more than a rabble of bandits, and their failure to press the attack on the legations, such that Chinese imperial troops had to take over for them, resulted in this attitude returning tot eh fore. BryanIrving (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)BryanIrving

Of course your versions are completely factual, CCP of course never sack Li Da Tong for allowing freezing point to point out innaccuracies in Chinese textbooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.203.57 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I would agree that the article seems a bit imbalanced right now, without enough context. According to "Late Victorian Holocausts" by Mike Davis, the Boxers had a popular slogan of "equal division of grain" during draught and/or famine conditions. At least the popular beelief among Boxers that imperial or foreign persons were responsible for this (rightly or wrongly) was a driving force in the Boxer Rebellion. Also, if you look at the military actions by the Eight Powers in response, that is, well-armed militaries attacking peasants with little more than rocks to throw, the murders by the Boxers take on a slightly different dimension.

---

I don't think this sentence is neutral: However, controversy still exists about the significance of the movement, and even today the Boxers are praised by the government of the People's Republic of China as patriotic anti-imperialists.

How is it not neutral? This very forum should illustrate that the movement remains controversial. And the Chinese government does consider them patriots. I guess it depends on your definitions of bias.JDelp (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

---

This sentence is unclear:

"So great was the sum that much of the money was later earmarked by the Britain and the U.S. for overseas education of Chinese students, forming the basis of Tsinghua University."

Education of Chinese students in America? Of overseas Americans in China? Please clarify.

Obviously, it is referring to American support of overseas Universities...i.e. Chinese students in China, studying using American/U.K. dollars.

Western bias

There seems to be a strong bias in this article towards the western powers and their christians.

I have to agree. Mention of the western's casualities abound. Why were they there? What about the millions of Chinese that died as a result of the opium trade? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

I had forgotten that I made the above comment two and a half years ago. The comment stands. The article remains silent about the reasons why the boxers were so very very angry. --Timtak (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since then dozens, if not at least one hundred edits, have occurred. If you believe that the article violates NPOV, give specific reasons why please. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a small edit, adding that many Chinese 'christians' were simply criminals who used the association with the church to flee Chinese law, further harming the image of christians in China.

For a perspective on this subject, I added 2 sourced statements that address the "irritation" and the anti-Roman Catholic nature of the Boxer Crisis. The problem, it seems, was not as much "criminals fleeing Chinese Law" as Chinese using the extra powers of Chinese law granted to these foreign missionaries to their own ends - for good or ill.Brian0324 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There appears to me to be a decidely anti-western bias in at least part of the article. Statements such as ...

"Actually, the so-called "Boxers" were common Chinese citizens protested the invasion of the Eight-Nation Alliance (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Austia-Hungary). During the occupation of China by the Eight-Nation Alliance, they ransacked many houses and committed various atrocities against civilians, including rape and murder.

Troops and participants of the Eight-Nation Alliance were largely responsible for the ransacking and pillaging of many historical artifacts of Chinese nationalist origin, such as those found in the Summer Palace, and instigated the burning of many prominent Chinese buildings." ... ignores the role of the Boxers as tools of a Chinese elite and states the very propoganda that history shows the Boxers spread against the incursion of the Jesuits. This section is overly simplistic and speaks in charged language about events of which there can be no certainty. It betrays an anti-Western bias. Uwharries 18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Uwharries

so you would rather ignore that and only preach the propaganda of the westerners subjugating yet another heathen civilization —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.43.28 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He did not post that. You are trying to defend a statment with no sources- Uwharries is asking for the poster to use rational arguments when making these serious accusations. And quiet honestly, that is not alot to ask for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.32.78 (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese patriots vs Viking attackers lol. It's probably a great job foreigners took many pieces of Chinese art because some of above Chinese posters' parents may break it up in 1960's lol. <---THIS GUY'S A TOOL

German Troops vs. Russian Troops in Boxer Rebellion

Although it was the German Kaiser Wilhelm II's comment to "make the name German remembered in China for a thousand years...", it was not German troops that fulfilled this comment, but rather Russian troops, when they "behaved like Huns at the Amur River by throwing 5,000 men, women and children into the river to drown." See http://www.lisburn.com/books/hart_of_lisburn/hart-of-lisburn4.htm (among others).

Thus edit: "German troops came in for criticism..." to become: "Russian troops came in for criticism..."

(to be done by someone with better confirming sources than just the above website)

Multiple other sources refer to Germain troops. I think your reference errored. Which makes sense... why whould russian troops respond to the German Kaiser's orders?

Catskul 06:15, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

I don't really know much about it, bbut I doubt there was much difference between the different nationals. Also, Russian troops certainly commited many crimes, but of course not responding to the German Emperor, yet on their own... 84.154.5.131 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Nanjing

Would you say that the Boxer Rebellion happened as a direct result of the Nanjing Treaty, or not? I want to hear both sides of this issue. User:Peaceman

I believe the Nanjing Treaty was a cause but the Boxer Rebellion was not a direct result

Please sign your posts on talk pages. It's easy to do, you just put four tildes ~~~~. You can do this whether or not you are signed in, but a user signin costs you nothing, and gives you a little extra privacy (we can't see your IP address then). Andrewa 8 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

I would say the Nanjing Treaty was a catalyst, but not the direct root cause. You can attribute The Boxer Rebellion to so many root causes. The most direct and yet most superficial one is the cultural conflict (Do I sounds like that Harvard professor?). The Qing Court's misjudgetment and mis- (or failed)communication with the foreign nations were also to blame.

All the unequal treaties contributed to the Boxers. So did the attitude of the Western imperialists in China who considered themselves superior to the CHinese. And the so called "christians" who came in with the imperialists to make profit from the Chinese people (though there were true christian missionaries, like Hudson Taylor) All of these humiliations under western powers brought about the sentiment that fueled the Boxers Skillmaster (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Skillmaster do you have any sources for your statement so called "christians" who came in with the imperialists to make profit from the Chinese people? Pbhj (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Images restored

I have restored the images deleted by an IP with no explanation. It seems just to have been a test, or perhaps a random act of vandalism (the line is a bit hard to draw sometimes). Andrewa 8 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

Question about Results

Within the paragraph there mentioned an Empress, however, in the overall chinese history, there was only one Empress and definitely not during the Qing dynasty. It is not the Empress but just the Emperor's mother that was interferring with his business to a point where the Emperor had no power at all.

However, she was still not the Empress, yet. (As documents indicate, she wanted to become the Empress but not quite there yet.) MythSearcher 19:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read quite a lot of docs that refer to just the "Empress". You're right it should be the [Tzu_Hsi|Empress Dowager Tzu Hsi] (pinyin Cixi) but as she was the major controlling influence for 60+ years over 2 (and a bit!) Emperor's (by name) you can understand how they'd just call her the Empress. As long as the full title "Empress Dowager Tzu Hsi" is used first I see no problem with using "Empress Tzu Hsi"/"Empress Cixi"Pbhj (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More detailed description of the expedition by allied force

I just added the paragraph to give a little description of the marching from Tientsin to Peking. From what I found out, it is amazing that despite the huge number of Imperial troops and Boxers along the Peiho river, the allies almost took a casully walk (or almost) to reach Peking. The uncomfortables were caused mainly by the heat and water shortage, as well as the densely grown corn fields! The takeaway is that the dynasty was completely corrupted.

Results section

Made a minor change in the following paragraph that originally mentioned Ci-Xi as the mother of the emperor. Ci-Xi was actually the aunt of the Guangxu emperor as he was the son of her younger sister as noted in the Guangxu wikipedia article.

Cobrat 04:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Cobrat

code

Someone please fix. The template for the allianced countries is covering up the following: The United States was able to play a significant role in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion because of the large number of American ships and troops.

--this problem has been fixed =)

Maybe it's just my computer, but the box containing the introductory image and statistics overlaps on a bit of the text. Raitari (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to the above. When a firefox browser is sized such that Griffith John's quote is near the top of the boxer rebel image (and a couple of other places), most of it gets covered. Not sure if this is article specific but I haven't seen it elsewhere.Phil153 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Plunder

I did read a while ago in a Japanese book on history that the Japanese were the only ones not to participate in plunder and rape. An anonymous contributor just wrote that both Japan and the United States refrained from such violences. This will need referencing, but this is an interesting point to clarify. Regards. PHG 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, which is why I deleted it. John Smith's 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Still no reference 9 months on, so have taken out the claim japanese and American troops did not engage in looting.

Japanese history books are very biased, they still omit WWII and reject the atrocities committed during the war. It's just out of the eight nations, only Japan still heavily deny any participation in the violence.

about the picture

I think they are not boxers.They are more likely to be the mercenaries from Weihai,Shandong,where was a british colony.Ksyrie 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Yes, I agree.

The boxers were not uniformed as such and did not carry rifles. As I recall, 'Yihequan' members only embraced hand to hand tactics.

These troops appear to be the elite units that the Manchu gov't formed with special foreign assistance. The guys in the this picture are perhaps connected to the Peiyang Force who fought the Japanese in Korea.

The people on the main picture look very heroic, but they simply cannot be boxers. I suggest that it be removed.--Niohe 00:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this picture is labeled as "Boxers" in a quite trusworthy Japanese book I have on the Imperial Japanese Navy: Tōgō Shrine and Tōgō Association (東郷神社・東郷会), Togo Heihachiro in images, illustrated Meiji Navy (図説東郷平八郎、目で見る明治の海軍), (Japanese). Unless we have more details on the actual look and equipment of the Boxers, I suggest this image be kept. Regards PHG 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess that the point that I'm trying to make is that they look more like uniformed soldiers than irregulars, just compare that picture (which I have never seen before) with the others on the page. They look completely different. My guess is that this is a picture of soldiers in the new armies constructed in late Qing. Just for the record, what is the Japanese word for Boxer used in the caption for this picture, and when was the book published?--Niohe 10:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They use the word 義和団. I don't have the book on hand right now, but it is fairly recent (just a few years). Regards PHG 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I still find the picture problematic. If you look at the other pictures (which are widely publicized), you notice that none of the boxers carry firearms nor do they dress in neat uniforms.

To respond to your point earlier, I think it is up to the people who want to keep it to show why it is authentic. Until then, the picture should be deleted.--Niohe 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but at least this image is referenced from a published source. Please reference your point that "none of the boxers carry firearms nor do they dress in neat uniforms". And this image: Image:Boxer Rebellion.jpg doesn't really show weaponless soldiers I think. Regards PHG 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the dress, these people are really soldiers from the Qing armies. Pls also remember that this is a drawing. Reference to my statement? Just scroll down the page and have a look at the two pictures. I see no firearms, nor do I see any uniforms.

I still find the image dubious and I would like to see it deleted.--Niohe 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I observe that the book you are referring to is about the Japanese Navy and not about the Boxers. It is easy to include dubious images off topic in a work like that.--Niohe 13:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Belgian embassy?

"The embassies of the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United States, Russia, and Japan were all located on the same city block close to the Forbidden City"

"However, the Spanish, Belgian, and German embassies were not on the same compound."

Where was the Belgan embassy?

Maxim gun at the compound

I have deleted phrase "old Austrian Maxim gun" in the embassy compound. It had been restored and I have deleted it again for the reasons below: 1. At the time of the rebellion Maxim guns were a world novelty; therefore no "old Maxim gun". 2. Austrians did not use Maxims; their machine gun was Schwarzlose. 3. Finally and most importantly: the gun at the compound, sometimes nicknamed "International Gun" or "Betsy" was indeed and old, muzzle loaded cannon. Nickname came from the fact that the barrel was British, the carriage Italian, the shells - Russian, the crew American. A picture of it can be found here: http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/rcs_photo_project/868.html, with the detailed description. See also: Marina Warner, "The dragon empress : life and times of Tz'u-hsi 1835-1908 : empress dowager of China", London : Cardinal, 1974. In the book there is both a picture and the description of the gun.

Figure on deaths

Can we get a figure on how many deaths were caused by the boxer's. And how many can be attributed to the europeans? MrDark 10:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Belgian Legation

The Belgian Legation (not Embassy) was located east of Legation Street (entering from what is now Tiananmen Square) at the edge of the foreign quarter. The Legation was given up on 22 June 1900, the second day of the siege, in order to shorten the defence lines. The (repaired / rebuilt?) Belgian Legation still exists but is now a guest house (currently no longer for Westerners - see the Lonely Planet Guide on Beijing, 6th edition), across from St Michael's Church. I have had a quick peek at some of the compound (the ubiquitous Beijing Security permitting after some smooth talking) on 13 and 27 April 2006. A couple of snaps are available upon request at dompiak at yahoo dot com. The main building is a rather attractive little red brick manor.

The Belgian Legation

The picture is definitely of the Chinese mercenaries helping the British. The Boxers didn't use guns.

Really? I remember that the German Ambassor Klemens von Ketteler was shot.

That's utter rubbish. John Smith's 19:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about the picture, but Ambassor Klemens von Ketteler was not shot by a Boxer. He was shot by a uniformed Manchu Bannerman named Enhai, a lance corporal in the Peking Field Force. He was later tracked down by the Japanese and executed by the Germans. Before his execution he said that he'd been promised a promotion and seventy taels of silver by his superior (but only received 40). (Seagrave - "Dragon Lady" p335, quoting Fleming p108 and Satow diary, Oct 21,1900) Ka-ru 7:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rebellion

The line in this section "When the Envoy for the German Empire, Klemens Freiherr von Ketteler, was kidnapped and killed on June 20, the foreign powers declared open war against China" is not completely correct on 2 counts.

1) Ketteler was not kidnapped. He was shot while traveling in a sedan chair on the way to the Yamen (Chinese foreign affairs office) by a Manchu soldier. (Seagrave - "Dragon Lady" p335, refering Fleming p108 and Satow diary Oct 21, 1900)

2) While this did provoke hostilities in Peking, war had already been declared many miles away by the Allied forces at the Taku forts. After the Boxers burnt down the French Settlement near Tientsin on June 14, and with the forts taking on supplies and reinforments in light of the array of Allied warships just off the coast, it was decided to issue an ultimatum on June 15 for the forts' surrender at 2am, June 17. Prior to this, technically, the enemy had been the Boxer uprising, not the Chinese government. When the Allies attacked at 12.45am on June 17, a state of war with the Chinese nation began. At this point, no shots had been fired at the legations in Peking. The American forces did not take part in this initial ultimatum as they were ordered not to become involved militarily in the absence of a declaration of war. (Seagrave - "Dragon Lady" p329-331, refering Ibid., p347)

Due to telegram lines to Peking being cut, the court in Peking did not find out about the ultimatum until June 19, where an order was issued to defend the provinces from foreign attack, one day before Ketteler's murder. In fact, Ketteler was traveling to the Yamen as a result of the news of the fighting arriving the day before and the Yamen's suggestion that foreigners evacuate the capital. (Seagrave - "Dragon Lady" p332, refering Tan p74-75) Ka-ru 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian involvement

No mention of the Australian Naval contingents that were sent into China? I'm assuming they've been lumped in with "British Forces"?

No need to assume as Australia were entirely part of the British Empire and the forces under their control of the British government. There is no reason to suggest they formed their own force under different command chains. A main starting point is that the fleets often combined naval vessels from both countries. Maybe could find a list of the battalions there at the time would show whether specific australian units were used?62.239.159.70 (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference Needed

"Much of it was later earmarked by both Britain and the U.S. for the education of Chinese students at overseas institutions, subsequently forming the basis of Tsinghua University". Besides the establishment of Tsinghua University by the US using part of the war reparations, is there any reference or sources that back up this claim as a whole? if not this statement should be repharsed.

Picture deletion explanation

The picture on top of the page is likely not depicting boxers, for the very reason that (1) Boxer usually did not carry guns and (2) they did not wear standardized uniforms. The picture may be referenced, but the author of the book has in all likelihood confused a group of reguar soldiers with the boxers. For more info, see Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Picture above. --Niohe 12:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved a picture, which is widely recognized as genuine, to the top of the page.--Niohe 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Boxer's Religious Beliefs (Myth?)

Can anyone confirm any of the Boxer's belief in the paranormal (for a lack of a better word); in particular spirit possession and magic charms? I'm beginning to believe its nothing but a myth. I havnt once seen a single old photo of Boxer's wearing magical charms and the like. Can someone elaborate or prove me wrong (please).

Bob (Janurary 24, 2007)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.128.230 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, photos weren't exactly popular at the time, and probably even less so in provincial China. I have a few books here that cite the superstitious beliefs of the Boxers, including believing bullets wouldn't hit them, use of dance, and the belief in a "spiritual army" of dead who would crush the Westerners. The bookx include "Recent Chinese Studies of the Boxer Movement" by David D. Buck and "The Boxer Rebellion" by Christopher Martin. Both are a bit old, but I haven't seen anything to dispute them. Trappleton 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Boxer's religious belief is everything that made them what they were. If not for it, CiXi and the court would not have been impressed. It is their belief in the paranormal, which supposedly allows them to combat the westerners, which gained them the support and popularity. You will also find that the regional governor's doubt/disbelief at the superstition made them draw away from the movement (yes, and of course there were foreign pressures and the fact that they would hate a centralized government, etc would make them prefer a regional one, but I don't think they really saw the boxer movement as anything more than a bunch of thugs that the court empowered out of desperation.) --RoSeeker 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text in The Boxers section

User:Enochlau deleted text on April 22, 2007 because he claimed it was unverified. That claim may be valid, and we welcome challenges to undocumented statements, but that is not the appropriate Wikipedia process. Correct is to add the citation-needed tag {{fact|date=April 2007}} to the questioned text and give the editor the opportunity to provide a valid reference source. If he does that within a reasonable time, the text remains. Otherwise, it can be removed. I have restored the deleted text and added such a tag. I will check back in one week (April 29, 2007) and take appropriate action at that time. Truthanado 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see there have been some edits in this area that seem reasonable and supportable. No further action is needed. Truthanado 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether the Empress Dowager Cixi supported the Boxers.

As i surf wikipedia, i found 3 sources giving different opinions to whether the Empress Dowager suported the Boxers.I am at a puzzle here.Which is correct?Did she support the Boxers openly,was forced to support the Boxers by the court or condemned the Boxers in the open but supported them behind the scene?

She supported the Boxers. See Hsu, or any other reputable history books on late Qing. -RoSeeker 00:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense...

Foreign media described the fighting going on in Peking as well as alleged torture and murder of captured foreigners. Tens of thousands of Chinese Christians were massacred in north China. Many horrible stories that appeared in world newspapers were based on a deliberate fraud.

Were the stories exaggerations or simply lies? This article mentions the murder of 18000 Chinese Catholics, so is this true or not? Is the only the torture alleged, or both torture and murder? I think it is now seen as a fact that foreign missionaries were murdered. I understand that there is a debate about the POV of the article, but perhaps passages could be edited to avoid contradiction. --Scotchorama 09:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Massmurder in Blagoveshchensk 1900

After the Russians entered in Manchuria to built the Chinese Eastern Railway, the Russian policy in clearing the southern shores of Amur of Chinese had been ruthless. On the south side of Amur the ones populated forts and villages were deserted. During the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 the Chinese outlaws from the south side of the Amur habitually fired the Russian river ships. Some shots were fired from the small Chinese village on the other side of the river, opposite Blagoveshchensk, where the river is about 800 metre wide and nearly three metre deep in shipping channels. There were an indefinite number of Chinese living peaceably in Blagoveshchensk, estimated at between 3.000 and 12.000. Most reliable figure is more than 10.000 Chinese living by 1900 at town.

The Russian commander of Imperial Army unit based at Blagoveshchensk, fearing that an Chinese uprising was imminent, ordered the Russian soldiers drove those Chinese civilians some four versts up river from the town and forced them into water. Some managed to climb on to rafts, but the majority was drowned.

JN

???

"70,000 Imperial Troops"

ok.... Contralya 11:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An Empire of 400 million people defeated by 50,000 troops??

How come? When reading about The Boxer Rebellion, it is always astounded my that the empire didn't even have the power to capture the foreign legation. China used to field huge armies, by the hundreds of thousands in a single battle. Yet, during the Boxer Rebellion it had....how many? I mean, where was the chinese millions? Rad vsovereign (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a matter of organization, technology, training, all of which were not in favor of the Chinese. Plus, much of the Chinese population was either incapable or unmotivated to leave and fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.162.126 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese government in the 19th century was plagued by severe incompetence. As a result the citizens did not like them very much. Aside from the government lacking the political will and ability to conduct war against the invaders, support from the people was also low. That's the problem with monarchy, it's like a lottery, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.71.144 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the conflict

The article should include a mention of how the rebellion came to be called the "Boxer" rebellion, what did boxers have to do with it? Shadoom (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read that they were something along the lines (but not this, will post back when I find the citation ... see below from "a thousand miles of miracles", glover - has pictures too) "society of the lightning fists" and so they were nick-named boxers by the western newspapers. They had several names. This is why the picture with the caption A Boxer rebel. His banner says (in translation) "By Imperial Order - Boxer Supply Commissariat". the Boxer bit was a western invention, they had a well defined Chinese name, can't imagine they would use an English language one on their own banners. Pbhj (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The regular (or literary) name given to the Guild was that of " I Ho Ch'iian," which means literally ** The Righteous United Fists.** It was this latter word which (improperly) gave rise to the notorious term " Boxers.*' The local (or colloquial) name was that of " Ta Tao Huei,** or " The Guild of the Great Sword." The use of tliis latter style (at least in our district) was invariable.

Since Chinese and foreign historians now generally agree that the movement actually intended to support the dynasty, they call it the "Boxer Uprising" rather than "Boxer Rebellion." Should we add a short explanation of the controversy and change the title of the article to "Boxer Uprising"? ch (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The most common name is still "Boxer rebellion". The American Revolution was technically a secession, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

• In the lead section, the final paragraph begins "The government of Empress Dowager Cixi was not helpful..." What does this mean? Helpful who? — ERcheck (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Duration of the rebellion? Which is it?
  • The introductory paragraph says November 1899.
  • The infobox says 2 November 1899.
  • The Uprising section says "The Boxer activity began in Shandong province in March 1898..."

— ERcheck (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Duration of the rebellion? It's probably quite a hard question. It started as activity, then became a rebellion, then gained government support and became an uprising; following the interventions of the eight-nation alliance it probably then became an underground movement. Pbhj (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Newly-added section with issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Boxer Rebellion's carnage.

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

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

• Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Boxer Rebellion

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

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

• bmsworldmission.org

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

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

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

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

Unquoted.

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

Not necessarily. They could be using the same source.

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

• BOXER REBELLION 1900

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

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

• The Chinese Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion

Contributed by Father Geoffrey Korz

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

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

• More killings

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

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

• Boxer supported by Empress Dowager

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

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

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

• St. Modeste Andlauer

Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Kings College history department

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:This book is an extremely useful source when studying the dowager empress because it portrays her in a positive light. This is not very common in regard to most books written about her. This is because most books focus on her negative, court politic playing behavior. I found this book to be just as credible as the others in this bibliography. It was just written from a different perspective. Unquoted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Quote:However, the picture it paints is an extremely negative one. It focuses on Tzu Hsi as solely a power hungry, miserable, rotten woman who would do anything to get power and then to stay in power. Therefore, this book would be useful for the study of the empress dowager because it gives the researcher yet another perspective. Unquoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Warner, a jounalist, describes Tz'h-hsi as trapped by superstition, nepotism, and a corrupt court. Readable account with some good pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Carving up the Melon

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

• Australian troops(about !000)in Peking.

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

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

• This was not done by Australians; it was a local punishment.Unquoted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

long confusing irrelevant section

I removed it, and made a couple of other changes, but it seems to keep reappearing. I've never really edited before, but there's a big chunk here that is essentially propaganda for one view, that is difficult to read because of poor grammar, and that is frequently not germane to the topic. Can someone who knows a little more about wikipedia/has a little more time do something about this. I came to this article because I have an interest in the topic, and want to learn more about it, but instead I'm getting a list of 120 Catholic martyrs, and the Manchu emperors described as "barbaric." Doesn't sound NPOV to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.204.232 (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace Chinese View?

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

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

Requesting consensus discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

慈禧:天下,乃我爱新覺羅之天下
慈禧:量中华之物力，结与国之欢心”

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

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

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

Seek consensus to modify error in statement

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

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

Basic Rewrite Please!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move material from Righteous Harmony Society

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

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

citation needed

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for telling me chinahistoryforum.com, I did not know it exists, I often visit kdnet.net, Baidu bar, or sina forums. All of them in Chinese. Have you been to this one(sometimes have high quality articles:mitbbsArilang1234 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Slaughter, rape, and pillage

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

Restored?

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

Image copyright problem with File:55 Days.jpeg

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

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

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

BMS internal link

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

Additional sources and rewrite?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese communist propaganda

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

Yes, there seems to be a lot of that going on here unfortunately.WackoJackO 04:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article needs a comprehensive spell-check.

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

Let's get back to business

Friends --

Let's not lose sight of the aims of Wikipedia, which are NOT to find "the truth," nor is the purpose of our Talk Pages to carry on debates, however meaningful out in the real world. Wikipedia purposes are both simpler and less noble: to write encyclopedia articles which are useful to our readers. I see a number of intelligent and informed comments which are well intentioned, but should be posted in an appropriate place, such as Chinese History Forum. [2] I very much enjoy and profit from the debates there, but they are, as noted at the head of this page, not appropriate here!

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

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

Prescriptivism or compromise?

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

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

merge proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page Protection

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

Fiction

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

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

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

IMHO R Philip Reynolds

Picture: US MArines or Army?

That picture labled US Marines at the Siege of Beijing, I'm very confident that that is actually a picture of US Army. I'm Army ROTC at BYU, and that picture is one of my classrooms with the correct information. I can't remember what it is though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.114.188 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Gods and ghosts

庚子国乱的反思 义和拳到底是什么？凤凰网历史专稿

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

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

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

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

Section to be moved

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

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

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

War reparations

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

Dagu (Taku) Forts

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

Warning- this article is not a place to spew anti Manchu propaganda

Some users have succesfully derailed this article into an anti manchu rant, especially the section on the depictions of the boxers. It seems as though the user is trying to deliberately ignore the Westerner's war crimes, and make it seem as though the boxers and Manchus were evil incarnated, and that everything was the Manchu's fault, the opium war has absolutely nothing to do with this article..Дунгане (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The foreign casualty rate was beyond the 200% mark.

Fascinating.