Jump to content

Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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, Firewalking

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)

Well, I think the recently added content has too much emphasis on the "heroic" nature of the Manchu Army, the Muslim Army, the Han Army. Let me put it this way, according to Professor Yuan Weishi, official Chinese school textbooks are not trustworthy. User:Дунгане, lets have a good discussion and try to turn this article into a more balance, and well structured article, in good faith. Arilang talk 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

http://vip.book.sina.com.cn/book/chapter_37281_20495.html

刘孟扬《天津拳匪变乱纪事》，载《义和团》。 --杀洋人，灭洋教。帝国的农民们认为自 己是"神" Deity，洋人和教民是"鬼" Gweilo ，这是一场"神鬼之战"--杀人的和被杀的双方都已经 被帝国的农民"非人化"了。 Arilang talk 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • 刘孟扬(1877-1943)，字伯年，天津人，回族，是刘清扬(邓颖超战友、中国妇女运动领袖)之兄。他秀才出身，是清末争取“预备立宪”的著名地方人士。1902年《大公报》创立，他受聘为主笔，其间曾发起成立“公益天足社”，宣传废除缠足陋俗。1905年在天津创办《白话报》，曾发表文章抨击袁世凯，有《天津拳匪变乱纪事》等著作。

http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%8B%B3%E8%AE%8A%E9%A4%98%E8%81%9E

  • 拳變餘聞

類讖語，奧莫能明也。及曹州匪起，今總統袁公方撫山東，獲匪首朱紅燈戮之，時謂應紅燈之讖。然津郡尚無擾也。庚子四五月間，忽傳有紅燈照者，皆十餘齡幼女，紅衣褲，挽雙丫髻，稍長者盤高髻，左手持紅燈，右手持紅巾，及朱色折叠扇，扇股皆朱髹。始老孀設壇授法，集閨女數十輩，環侍受法。四十九日，術成，稱太師姐。轉教他女，術成，持扇自扇，漸起漸高。上躡雲際，擲燈下，其從嫗拾繳壇內。女身植立空際，漸化為明星，較星差大，其光晶晶，或上或下，或近或遠，或攢聚如聯珠，或迤邐如貫魚。津民狂走聚觀，僉雲目睹。有終夜升屋而了者。女子自言，能於空中擲火焚西人之居，呼風助火，焚無餘。津民深信之。入夜，家家懸紅燈，迎紅燈照仙姑也。城內外列炬高懸，若萬星之齊耀，爭傳拳隊所至，紅燈隨之。每焚洋樓，皆言仙姑擲火也。又有沙鍋照者，以饗神團，人挾一鍋，遇拳民戰時，析薪淅米，炊飯饗之。沙鍋僅如巨鉢，自言飯百人不盡。

  • 義和拳稱神拳，以降神召眾，號令皆神語。傳習時，令伏地焚符誦咒，令堅合上下齒，從鼻呼吸，俄而口吐白沫，呼曰神降矣，則躍起操刃而舞，力竭乃止。

其神則唐僧、悟空、八戒、沙僧、黃飛虎、黃三太。

  • 陈独秀曾在《克林德碑》一文中说，“我国民要想除去现在及将来国耻的纪念碑，必须要叫义和拳不再发生；要想义和拳不再发生，非将制造义和拳的种种原因完全消灭不可。现在世上是有两条道路:一条是向共和的、科学的、无神的光明道路；一条是向专制的、迷信的、神权的、黑暗的道路。”


  • 拳匪始於毓賢，成於載漪、剛毅，人所習聞。然最初實為李秉衡。光緒乙未，秉衡撫山東，仇視西人。山東有大刀會主仇西教，秉衡恒獎許之。丁酉十月，大刀會殺二教士，德人請褫秉衡職，不允，轉秉衡川督。德人憾不已，乃命開缺。

The foreign casualty rate was beyond the 200% mark.

Fascinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.129.233 (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Casualties can go beyond 200% because people can get wounded multiple times. This does not mean that the men were somehow ressurected from the dead and killed against if thats what you were thinking.Дунгане (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The statistics kept by the Legation hospital indicate that the casualty rate of the 409 legation guards was 46.5 percent (55 dead and 135 wounded). However, the casualty rate of the 25 Japanese and 47 French guards were 104 and 102 percent respectively, reflecting that some men were wounded twice during the battle. By contrast, the casualty rate of 82 British guards was only 15.5 percent. The 56 American and 81 Russian Guards suffered casualty rates of about 30 percent each. I think it would be accurate to say that the legation guards as a whole suffered heavy casualties -- 46.5 percent. These casualty figures are repeated in nearly every book about the Boxer Rebellion so can be easily verified.

The references cited for the 200 percent casualty rate do not state that casualties were 200 percent. One of them says that casualties were approaching 200 men. Smallchief 01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Original Boxer text

神助拳　義和團　只因鬼子鬧中原
勸奉教　自信天不信神　忘祖仙
男無倫 女行姦　鬼孩俱是子母產
如不信　仔細觀　鬼子眼珠俱發藍
天無雨　地焦旱 全是教堂止住天
神發怒　仙發怒　一同下山把道傳
非是邪　非白蓮　念咒語　法真言
升黃表　敬香烟 請下各洞諸神仙
仙出洞　神下山　附著人體把拳傳
兵法藝　都學全　要平鬼子不費難
拆鐵道　拔線桿 緊急毀壞大輪船
大法國　心膽寒　英美德俄盡消然
洋鬼子　盡除完　大清一統靖江山
http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E7%A5%9E%E5%8A%A9%E6%8B%B3_%E7%BE%A9%E5%92%8C%E5%9C%98_%E5%8F%AA%E5%9B%A0%E9%AC%BC%E5%AD%90%E9%AC%A7%E4%B8%AD%E5%8E%9F

I have not used a single textbook from mainland china, or any chinese source for that matter, while you reference Chinese websites (with .cn domain) and claim that i am the one who is copying PRC textbooks?
One Page 153 of Criitical Zone 3: A Forum of Chinese and Western Knowledge by Professor Douglas Kerr of the University of Hong Kong, it mentions that Dr. Sun Yatsen praised the Boxers for fighting western imperialists.
Also, i specifically mentioned how two Manchu princes, Yikuang, Prince Qing, and Ronglu sabotaged the Chinese army during the war to let the western imperialist powers seize beijing, this is covered extensively in the current article.
the fact is, that Chinese Christains were acting as spies and agents for the western militaries and this is why the Kansu Braves and the Boxers went house to house to eliminate them, because they were providing information to the western miliaries.
And, testimony directly from the westerners and western soldiers fighting in this war state on how the Chinese army was using modern artillery and weapons to systematically destroy and defeat them numerous times, from "Indiscreet Letters from Peking: Being the Notes of an Eye-witness" and " China in convulsion, Volume 2" are eyewitness accounts from westerners in the war that i reference, which stated repeatedly that the Chinese army outgunned, defeated, and used advanced tactics like sniping and hidden artillery to ravage eight nation alliance positions. And since these were primary source, i used "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", which is a secondary source by a scholor Jane E. Elliott, and it backs up everything in the primary sources.Дунгане (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


User:Дунгане, thanks for your comment, and I shall try my best to put forward my POV, and hopefully we would reach some sort of consensus.


(1) "The Boxer Rebellion, also called The Boxer Uprising by some historians or the Righteous Harmony Society Movement in northern China, was ananti-colonialist, anti-Christianmovement by the "Righteous Harmony Society" (Yìhétuán),[1] or "Righteous Fists of Harmony" or "Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists" (known as "Boxers" in English), in China between 1898 and 1901. The uprising took place in response to imperialist expansion (into China) involving European opium traders, political invasion, economic manipulation, and missionary evangelism. "

In my opinion, this lead section is straight out of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China, and need to be rewritten. Notice the word "Uprising" (Chinese: 起义) being used, and The uprising took place in response to imperialist expansion (into China) involving European opium traders, political invasion, economic manipulation, and missionary evangelism. , which is full on and pure propaganda stuff, is not of encyclopedic standard.

(1)Now, what exactly was "Boxer" ? Let us look at 拳變餘聞, an article by 羅惇曧 1871年—1924年, who had also written 庚子國變記, and both articles can be found in Chinese wikisource.In 拳變餘聞, 義和拳稱神拳，以降神召眾，號令皆神語。傳習時，令伏地焚符誦咒，令堅合上下齒，從鼻呼吸，俄而口吐白沫，呼曰神降矣，則躍起操刃而舞，力竭乃止。 Now 神拳, is kind of zh:神打, a mix of hypnotic power, magic power, mystic power, Chinese poly-Gods power, in short, a kind of Chinese Kung Fu plus Firewalking show. Their then claims of flying in thin air, immune to bullet or knife assaults, and the ability to summon divine spirit soldiers, are just pure fantasy, the stuff where Hollywood movies were made of.
(2) Quoted from: 拳變餘聞 : 拳匪, 匪, bandits, so in Qing Dynasty time, Boxers were classified as bandits, were to be put down by the then government.
(3) Quoted from: 拳變餘聞 :拳匪始於毓賢，成於載漪、剛毅，人所習聞。Boxer bandits were supported by Manchu officials : 毓賢，載漪、剛毅.
(4) 毓賢命制鋼刃數百柄，分賜拳童，勉以殺洋人。大師兄出入撫署，若貴賓。五月，朝旨令保護教民，毓賢承端剛旨，仍置不問。六月，匪焚教堂，毓賢登高觀之曰：“天意也。”營官將施救，毓賢不許。英教士逃出，號於眾曰：“昔晋省大（旱），吾輸財五六萬，活數千人。今獨不能貸一死耶？”卒戕之。一英婦挾兒出，跪言吾施醫歲活數百人，今請貸吾母子。語未絕，一兵以挺擊之，僕，推置火中，復奮身出，仍推入，與其子同燼焉。毓賢以兵守城門，禁教士出入，復移教士老幼於鐵路公所，以兵守之。他日復驅入撫署，毓賢坐堂皇，命行刑，殺英教男女老幼三十餘人，服役二十餘人，梟首示城門，剖心弃屍，積如丘山。又驅法天主堂教女二百餘人，至桑棉局，迫令背教，皆不從。令斬為首二人，以盎承血，令諸女遍飲，有十六人爭飲盡之。毓賢令縛十六人懸高處，迫其餘背教，皆不從，求死益堅。
Well, Taiyuan Massacre has similar kind of content.

(5) 拳匪之入京師，剛毅實導之。剛毅識字不多，以清正自詡。由部曹外任巡撫，內召為尚書，入樞府，后眷甚隆。奉命江南查案，旋之廣東，斂浮賦，括四百萬，曆東南諸省，括千萬歸於京師。得梁啓超所撰《清議報》，進於孝欽后，后大怒，憤外國之庇康梁，必欲報此仇。益恨德宗，思廢之，立端王載漪之子溥俊為大阿哥，將於庚子正月行廢立，剛毅實主之。

From the above sentence, it is very clear that 剛毅(Manchu official) was the main player in the Boxer Rebellion. Ok, I think we should use the 拳變餘聞 as a source, once we translate it, what do you think? Arilang talk 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the fact that Yuxian massacred a bunch of europeans does not mean anything about Manchu people. General Dong Fuxiang was Han, and he killed hundreds of foreigners during the rebellion, but he wasn't even punished because the Manchu Qing court refused to execute him, but they executed Yuxian.
, and lets remember that Christians used to accuse women of being witches, burned them alive at stakes, crushed them to death under rocks, and hung them, all based flimsly accusations, claiming the Boxers are stupid isn't helping advance your position. go look at Salem witch trials
And not all Manchus were pro Boxer, the two princes Yikuang, Prince Qing, and Ronglu were Manchu, and they backstabbed China by sending manchu bannermen first to attack the Boxers, and Ronglu even tried to force General Nie to concentrate on killing boxers and ignore the western invaders.
the lead was not even taken from any propaganda department. it was a FACT that western countries seized concessions in China, a Chinese temple was forcibly converted into a catholic church, which set off a major protest and foreign invaders killed chinese civilians for no reason.
Manchu prince Ronglu even tried to help the foreigners in the legations against the Muslim Kansu warriors and the boxers, sending food to them. The Manchu Prince Qing sent 10,000 troops to attack the Muslim and Boxer warriors who were fighting the foreigners. Appletons' annual cyclopædia and register of important events of the year ..., Volume 5
Manchu Dowager Empress Cixi herself said- "Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?"
the court was forced to support the Boxers because the western powers launched an illegal invasion during the Battle of Langfang without asking permmission from the Chinese government.Дунгане (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


In response to your comment,

  • (1) "Christians used to accuse women of being witches and burn them", that can not be used as an excuse for the boxers to kill anyone, westerners or oriental. It is not OK to burn people who were simply being accused as "witches", it is also not OK to chop off the heads of Christians, for whatever reason.
  • (2)義和拳稱神拳，以降神召眾，號令皆神語...其神則唐僧、悟空、八戒、沙僧、黃飛虎、黃三太。
    The boxers were originally called 神拳, had kind of "divine power", or spirit power out of this world. And all foreigns were Gweilo, ghost men, not human beings. The Chinese Gods VS Western ghosts concept is the essential part of the Boxer Rebellion theme, once the foreigns were given the "Ghost Men" status, then they can be killed at random, the question of morality just do not apply here, because they were killing Ghosts anyway, they were not killing Human beings.
  • (3)拳匪 The boxers were a bunch of bandits, from beginning to the end, and no historian can deny it. At one stage they were under the Qing court's command, and weapons were issued, but had never received any proper military training, and Manchu generals had no intention to convert them into regular army. Once they passed the used by date, it was just game over.
  • (4) "the court was forced to support the Boxers because the western powers launched an illegal invasion during the Battle of Langfang without askingpermmission from the Chinese government." Well, with or without Manchu Court's support, the Boxers were always just a bunch of bandits, they belong in the world of fantasy, the world of supernatural, and the world of superstition. And the lead section should state this fact clearly. Arilang talk 06:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The "origins of the Boxers" section in the article already explains the supernatural beliefs of the boxers. You are adding nothing new to the articleДунгане (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Since "Boxers" belong to the realm of supernatural, superstition and fantasy, then all these talk of " anti-colonialist", "anti-Christian", "uprising", "in response to imperialist expansion ", these are just empty talks, because these are serious political and sociological issues, issues that are too complex for "Boxers" to understand. Boxers were mobs, rioters, bandits, and murderers. They were nothing but puppets, manipulated by the Qing court. The lead section should be clear about it. the current lead section is giving all the readers a wrong impression, all the wrong "words" should be removed. Arilang talk 08:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Sun Yatsen himself praised the Boxers who were fighting against Western imperialist forces who raped women, killed civilians, and looted from innocent peasants. You accuse the Boxers of not being able to understand "anti imperialism". What the Boxers understood was that westerners blatantly violated Chinese soveirgnty, with western imperialist Christian missionaries seizing' a Chinese Temple to convert to a Church, killing innocent Chinese to take over more Sphere of influence, and blatantly exhibiting racism, the British Admiral Edward Hobart Seymour fought in China during the arrow war and claimed Chinese were primitive and easy to defeat, but his entire army was defeated at Battle of Langfang during the Boxer war, and he only escaped because the Qing court STOPPED The boxers from attacking the Western imperialist army. The Imperial army STOPPED the Boxers from completely destroying and humiliating the Allied army The Boxers has strong support among the Chinese population, it was because the people were reacting so violently to the Qing crackdown on Boxers that the court stopped attacking the Boxers, and instead supported them.
In addition, Imperial army Kansu muslim forces only killed Christians who were spies for the foreigners, they did not kill innocent civilians, and did not rape anyone, They even had tea with civilians and only took away several thousand dollars worth of property, unlike the western troops who killed, raped, and destroyed. One of the Imperial army Kansu soldiers even said, "You seem to be thoroughly respectable people: what a pity you should reside near with nest of foreign converts and spies" They even apologized for intruding.
And also, western Christians blatantly lied and filed a hoax report that Dong Fuxiang was threatening catholics in Hetao, just because they wanted foreign troops to be stationed in China. This hoax report filed by westerners claimed that Dong Fuxiang was killing wetsern missionaries and Catholics. It all turned out to be faked, because the western imperialist powers wanted to station troops in China, and violate Chinese soil.Дунгане (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Дунгане, there are hundreds of books written by many scholars, and it is natural that all these scholars have their own opinions towards the "Boxers", and I totally agree with you about the "western imperialists" bit, and we can go on and on about the American Red Indians being wiped out, the Australian Aboriginals being exterminated, India being colonized, so on and so forth. As a wiki editor, we are here to help everyday readers, not to confuse them. The title is "Boxer rebellion", first thing first, it is about "Boxer", and you and me have agreed that, they were just a bunch of mob, consisted of rioters, murderers, who also claimed to be possessed by Chinese divine spirits and hence were capable to perform various death defying supernatural feats. I am not against editors adding "anti western imperialists " content, but there is a limit, and also the balance, and the structure of the article, that we need to take care of. My POV is, the recently added content on (1) Muslim Army (2) Han Chinese Army (3) Qing Army, is a bit over the top. These additional content has kind of overshadowed the main theme, which is about "Boxer", and it's "Rebelion". Arilang talk 00:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Europeans besieged in the legations, reported that they could not see a single Boxer during the siege of the legation quarter. The Boxers melted away into the countryside and began their attacks there The siege was entirely conducted by the Imperial Army, and since the foreign expeditions into China were aimed at relieving the siege, it is the Imperial Army which played a major part.Дунгане (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


Again, the article, since it's name is "Boxer Rebellion", so we should talk about what they did, and not about what they didn't do. Of course the Boxers were backed up by the Imperial Troops, of course Imperial Troops did disguise themselves as Boxers and ambushed the invading westerners, there is no need to go into great details, as we can always create new article such as Muslim Kansu Braves

, into which we are free to add all the details we like. Likewise, sections Imperial Army Han Troops and Imperial Army Manchu Bannermen are both too bulky, need to be trimmed down. You agree ? Arilang talk 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

not all Boxers joined because they believed in supernatural things, Wang Zi-Ping was a devout Muslim, and did not believe in any of the ghost or the other stuff, he was famous for challenging foreign fighters to martial arts fights, to disprove their claims that they were superior to Chinese. Wang was a member of the Boxers during the rebellion and fled into hiding into a mosque after it was over.
And the French and Indian War has the words "French" and "Indian" in its name, but it was really about the British and Indians vs French and Indians, titles do not include all aspects of the articles.
If you create separate articles they need to be specifically about the units and divisions which fought during the boxer Rebellion, and not the Imperial army in general. Don't add the stuff on bannerman to the Eight Banners article, specific articles for the units like Zaiyi, Prince Duan's "Tiger and Divine Corps" bannermen need to be created.Дунгане (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of the article

I have begun to do sort of rewrite, beginning at the lead section, to make it more concise and cohesive. Any editors who have different opinions are welcome to join me here. Thanks. Arilang talk 07:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

[3]

There's a random "[3]" in the Origins section (that's not a reference link): "Then the Boxer slogan became "support the Qing, destroy the Foreign." (扶清灭洋) [3]". I assume this is supposed to be using the same reference as what reference 3 currently is (Spence (1999) pp. 231-232), but I'm not familiar enough with the topic or source to go and change that. howcheng {chat} 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Beijing Castle Boxer Rebellion 1900 FINAL.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Beijing Castle Boxer Rebellion 1900 FINAL.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 2, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-11-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion
Japanese and British troops attack members of the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists ("Boxers") at Beijing Castle during the Boxer Rebellion of 1899–1901. The Boxers, angered by foreign imperialist expansion into Qing Dynasty China, had engaged in looting, arson, and killings of foreigners. In 1900, the Empress Dowager Cixi employed the Boxers to attack foreign settlements in Beijing. The uprising was eventually put down by 20,000 troops from the Eight-Nation Alliance.Artist: Kasai Torajirō; Restoration: Staxringold
Archive – More featured pictures...
P.S. I scheduled this image for this day because the article infobox says that the rebellion started on 2 November 1899, but that date isn't mentioned anywhere in the article itself, and from what I can tell from reading this, there wasn't exactly a specific date where everything started, so where did this date come from? howcheng {chat} 23:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Nov 2 is given as the date of the beginning of the Boxer Rebellion. A traditional date for its beginning (from the foreign viewpoint) was the murder on Dec 31, 1899 of a Christian missionary in Shandong province. He was the first foreigner killed by Boxers. Smallchief 23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased. The point of an encyclopedia article cannot be to argue that the boxers were heroes, or that western armies engaged in "illegal" acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.109.44 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Dispute

I'm flagging this as biased due to the section that claims that no Boxers raped anyone (ever), and then goes on to talk about a "rampage of looting and raping of Chinese civilians" by Westerners. Neither section is adequately cited (the sources are not sufficient evidence for the claims made), and frankly, the style in which it was written suggests that a non-native speaker wrote it, which, in this circumstance, given the interest and position of the Chinese government on the issue, undermines its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.145.131 (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The source given for the "no rape" claim is Robert R. Mathisen, who (M.A. Ball State University) is Professor of History and Political Science at Corban College, Oregon. He has absolutely no connection with the chinese government, and the claims about looting and raping are well sourced by the WESTERN authors, did you even look at the citations? not a single chinese source was used.Дунгане (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is not the man you mention, but rather a Christian missionary who is cited in his book. If you do look at the source itself, she simply says that she never saw the Chinese commit rape. This single testimony is no solid evidence for claiming at large that "the boxers never raped a single woman." I think that's pretty clear. As for the claims of Western atrocities, I don't doubt them -- my quarrel isn't with the information presented but with the mode of presentation. An encyclopedia ought not to read "xyz went on a killing, looting, and raping rampage against abc" but rather "substantial evidence exists that xyz committed various atrocities against abc". I think the difference in tone betrays the bias in the former phrasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.145.158 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

The article have many issues:

  1. The name "Boxer Rebellion" it self is derogatory, their own name is Righteous Harmony Society.
  2. Comparing with Eight-Nation Alliance, both have killed and robbed a lot of innocent people, but one being described as heros and the other being described as gangs.
  3. ...

(many still to be listed here)

222.35.87.148 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:222.35.87.148, please read :Quoted from: 拳變餘聞 : 拳匪, 匪, bandits, so in Qing Dynasty time, Boxers were classified as bandits, were to be put down by the then government. There is nothing NPOV about the name bandits (Chinese:匪). Arilang talk 09:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Taiping rebels were also considered scum and bandits by the Qing authorities, but you have glorified them as heros on the Taiping Rebellion article. not only that, you continue to rely on wikisource, which is completely unreliable. If you keep up this POV trash i will remove all your edits.Дунгане (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Arilang, the only sources you have are wikisource, which is not a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, since you yourself added the information to wikisource! and the only other place you are getting you information from is from websites in mainland china, which is controlled and censored by Communists, so we cannot trust any information you present here. Find a real, credible source, not just in chinese. Otherwise your edits to the aritcle constitute vandalism.Дунгане (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
「神拳」義和團的真面目 作者：侯宜傑(侯宜杰. 1938年4月生，江苏沛县人，编审。中国社会科学院研究员。主要学术专长是清末立宪运动。)

http://books.google.com/books?id=3FP92a7ACSQC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E6%8B%B3%E5%8C%AA%E5%8F%98%E4%B9%B1%E7%BA%AA%E4%BA%8B&source=bl&ots=WTHdHBBq-9&sig=y-PxP 0kWZH6vHsHoAdRhikAdw2A&hl=zh-CN&ei=y6DQTO7nJoj0vQPFscGBBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBw

  1. v=onepage&q=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E6%8B%B3%E5%8C%AA%E5%8F%98%E4%B9%B1%E7%BA%AA%E4%BA%8B&f=false


User Дунгане, if you read this google book carefully, you can see that Boxers were referred to as bandits, and their alleged paranormal power was also mentioned. Arilang talk 23:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

http://cathay.ce.cn/history/200906/25/t20090625_19395153_1.shtml 


中国经济网首页 > 华夏文明  > 正文 义和团狂潮里的冷漠看客:王大点日记  张鸣

User Дунгане, if you read this article, it is very clear that Boxers were really a bunch of looters and murderers, who would chop women and children into bits and pieces. Arilang talk 00:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

http://data.book.hexun.com/chapter-2335-1-1.shtml 《大历史的边角料》 内容介绍作者：张鸣　　 出版社：陕西人民出版社　 和讯读书



Arilang talk 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not even grasp what the article about. The article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers. The article is about the response of the Chinese people to western imperialism, which led to the westerners creating an excuse and forminn an "expeditionary" force to seize Beijing, the German Kaiser urged Waldersee to seize as much land as he possibly could, this is not just about the Boxers actions which you keep stating the same thing repeatedly. The Taiping rebels were also considered bandits, yet i do not see you writing about their atrocities and destruction of chinese culture on the taiping rebellion article. redefining the defition of boxer rebellion to a series of looting, arson, and killings, is original research, since the Boxer Rebellion consists of all the military actions of the Expeditionary force and the forces in the legations, not just the Boxers.Дунгане (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


It is very clear to anyone, that there are two schools of thought here:
  • (1) The official Chinese government's view, that "Boxers" were anti-western anti-imperialist patriots.
  • (2) Boxers were just gangs of looters, arsonists, murderers, who believe in paranormal power which shield them from the harm of sharp knifes and machine gun bullets.

OK, let's work together in good faith, and have these two schools of thought well presented in this important history article. Arilang talk 06:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

inb4 some moralfag cries WP:CIVIL because I can hardly care, but honestly, what the fuck am I reading? What does the Chinese government have to do with anything at all? Are they even relevant? I sure as hell hope you're not trying to make a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument by linking everything with "the evil PRC making up propaganda derp". There is nothing in the article at all that is linked with anything governmental; your linking with "government propaganda" is nothing but a bad faith attempt to sway minds in my opinion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Orgy of looting"

It seems odd to me to have this phrase in quotes but not have it sourced unless the whole section is from the reference at the end. Also the sentence, "Catholic North Cathedral was a storehouse and super market for purchasing loot" annoys me - the words "super market" are just too much of an anachronism for me to be happy with. Carptrash (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, it should be sourced. It is such a commonly used phrase -- repeated by at least a dozen authors -- that I did not see the need, but I will source it to a reputable book and note that the phrase is used often in many books. And yes, super market is infelictious. I'll change it to a quote "salesroom." There's an extensive literature about the looting of Beijing. Two good wikipedia articles go into the subject in detail. See "William Scott Ament" and "Bishop Favier." Both justify to a certain extent the looting of their subjects, but there is no doubt that widespread looting by many -- probably most -- of the foreigners in Beijing took place. If this section is deemed as lacking scholary perspecive I can greatly expand it and add innumerable eye-witness references. The "Orgy of Looting" in Beijing was a reality. Smallchief 01:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 blatantly removing sourced information and falsely stating that a source is about "art"

User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"

Yet anyone with eyes can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."

in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either cannot read, or is lying when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removedДунгане (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its quite obvious Arilang has an agenda to advance. There are absolutely zero chinese government sources used in this article, yet Arilang is complaining that we are drawing information from the Chinese government "propaganda" department. So since nearly all of the sources used are by western authors with degrees from western universities, how did they magically change into chinese government sources?Дунгане (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, my apology to User:Дунгане, for making a mistake by claiming Jane E Elliott's book is about art only. But there is one request I would like User:Дунгане to do, please add the page number of the book in your references, so that other editor can check with ease, since that book has about 500 pages. That said, I would again suggest to User:Дунгане, the three sections

  • (1)Imperial Army Muslim Kansu Braves

(The official Chinese name is 甘军)

  • (2)Imperial Army Han Troops
  • (3)Imperial Army Manchu Bannermen

The above three sections are too bulky, and the structure is too loose, is not of encyclopedic quality, and is very difficult to read. Arilang talk 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jane E Elliott's book

There is one thing I would like to talk about the book, since quite a big part of the book is about Nianhua(Chinese 年画), and Jane Elliott made a lot of observations, and thus made a lot of statements based on her observations. Now, what exactly is Nianhua(Chinese 年画)?

春节贴年画，在我国由来已久。年画，古称“门神画”，其最早的名称叫“门画”。据《风俗通义》记述，在先秦两汉年节宗教信仰有祀门之习俗，故神荼、郁垒成为我国最早的司门之神。晋代宗懔《荆楚岁时记》道：“正月一日，给二神贴户左右，左神荼右郁垒，俗谓之门神。”

http://www.gov.cn/fwxx/wh/2006-01/24/content_170133.htm

Now, nianhua(Chinese 年画) is a Chinese tradition,a Chinese folk art, which were used by Chinese peasants to paste on their rooms, or front door for decoration purposes, were not meant to be faithful to historical facts in anyway. What I am saying is, how reliable can those nianhua(Chinese 年画) be, in relation to what really happened then, in 1900s? Arilang talk 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

She explains which nianhua are accurate, and which are not in the book, if you actually read it. And not all the stuff is about nianhua, there is information she got from other sources, she clearly did not get all the information about Li Hongzhang touring europe and buying weapons from "looking at nianhua".Дунгане (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


File:1958 Great Leap Forward poster.jpg
One of the nianhua(Chinese 年画), which was used as propaganda purposes in 1960s.
do not try to fool us. This communist poster is NOT a nianhua. It is a communist style propaganda poster which has NOTHING to do with nianhua made by chinese artists in the 1800s and during the Boxer Rebellion. The Nianhua in the book Elliot talks about are made by artists contemporary to the Boxers, not funded by the Chinese government. You are insulting our intelligence by posting a communist poster here.Дунгане (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Sun Yatsen clearly praised the Boxers for fighting western imperialists. He is the founding father of the Republic of China. Do not try to distort history, Arilang.

Douglas Kerr (2009). Critical Zone 3: A Forum of Chinese and Western Knowledge. Hong Kong University Press. p. 151. ISBN 9622098576. Retrieved 2010-6-28. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)


No personal attack

User:Дунгане, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot.


User:Дунгане has accused me of the following "sins", which I believe, are personal attacks. I would advice User:Дунгане stop doing it.

  • (1)"The Taiping rebels were also considered bandits, yet i do not see you writing about their atrocities and destruction of chinese culture on the taiping rebellion article."
  • (2)Arilang, the only sources you have are wikisource, which is not a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, since you yourself added the information to wikisource! and the only other place you are getting you information from is from websites in mainland china, which is controlled and censored by Communists, so we cannot trust any information you present here. Find a real, credible source, not just in chinese. Otherwise your edits to the aritcle constitutevandalism.Дунгане (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (3)The Taiping rebels were also considered scum and bandits by the Qing authorities, but you have glorified them as heros on the Taiping Rebellion article. not only that, you continue to rely on wikisource, which is completely unreliable. If you keep up this POV trash i will remove all your edits.Дунгане (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Arilang talk 03:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

悲剧， Do you even know what a personal attack is? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Arilang has not read wikipedia policy

Arilang frequently insults non chinese ethnic groups and uses wikipedia as a political platform

take a look at his language regarding Manchus on Talk:Qianlong Emperor, and a look at the intro in his "Sand box" User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Massacres
Arilang's language was absolutely appalling, accusing manchus of being barbarians, and he clearly shows the same intent here. he does not intend to add anything useful to wikipedia, only hateful insults.
In addition, he seems to think that wikipedia is a political platform for him to put issues in the "spotlight. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotionДунгане (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a look to Arilang1234's earliest "contributions", to this article

Among Arilang's earlist edits in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric Дунгане (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Дунгане, this talk page can only be used to discuss ways to improve the article, not a place to discuss what I did or what I didn't do. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and behave like a proper wikipedia editor. Arilang talk 05:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

you haven't offered anything to contribute, the only thing you have added to the article is insulting descriptions and revisionist history, no western historian describes the Boxer rebellions just as a series of "killings, lootings, and arson", instead, you keep avoiding the arguments that i put out on the talk page, and keep copy and pasting massive amounts of information from random mainland china websites onto the talk page. Stop ducking my arguments, and answer all of them before claiming you have concensus to change the article. Strange how you said- Lead section changed per talk page discussion- yet i see no one on this talk page execept you who agreed to change the lead.Дунгане (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
In addition, you still don't understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to your logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war.Дунгане (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
arilang seems to think that since the title only contains boxer, that the article should only be about Boxers.
Bawwwwwwwwww, Arilang, bawwwwwwwww. Who is the one crying foul and accusing other editors of malice, when you are the one who is ignoring criticisms against your own wrongdoing? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


To answer some of your false accusations: "you haven't offered anything to contribute, the only thing you have added to the article is insulting descriptions and revisionist history, no western historian describes the Boxer rebellions just as a series of "killings, lootings, and arson", instead, you keep avoiding the arguments that i put out on the talk page, and keep copy and pasting massive amounts of information from random mainland china websites onto the talk page."

OK,

(1) My original statement is : "It is very clear to anyone, that there are two schools of thought here:(1) The official Chinese government's view, that "Boxers" were anti-western anti-imperialist patriots.(2) Boxers were just gangs of looters, arsonists, murderers, who believe in paranormal power which shield them from the harm of sharp knifes and machine gun bullets."

Westerners were regarded as pig and goat like monsters, were to be slaughtered.







Lynn Bodin

Let us look at this book The Boxer Rebellion author：Lynn Bodin,http://books.google.com/books?id=2YleP1OP4HsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Boxer+Rebellions&hl=zh-CN&ei=yVbST JPgG4zSuwOFpYmBDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


Now, according Lynn Bodin, " extermination" would mean killing, all foreigners, all Chinese Christian converts, and all Chinese who worked for them were to be killed, to be exterminated as "devils", that means these were not humans, they were devils. This is extreme to the most. These were the true color of the Boxers. And if we look at the lead section of this article again: "The uprising took place in response to imperialist expansion (into China) involving European opium traders, political invasion, economic manipulation, and missionaryevangelism. "

Now, presume that you are a freshman at a university, and you happen to have read Lynn Bodin's book, at the same time, you have also read Boxer Rebellion on Wikipedia. Now, which story are you going to believe, Wlkipedia, or Lynn Bodin? Arilang talk 07:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote Lynn Bodin(Page4 The Boxer Rebellion) again:
According to Bodin, Boxers were cheaters, fraudsters, street show people who went into trance, in order to con others. Now if we read the Wikipedia lead section again:"In 1898 local organizations emerged in Shandong as the result of the anti-imperialist expansion, as well as other internal issues such as the state fiscal crisis and natural disasters." OK, which side of the story are we going to believe, Bodin, or Wikipedia? Arilang talk 07:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Peter Harrington,Michael Perry

Peking 1900: the Boxer rebellion 作者：Peter Harrington,Michael Perry http://books.google.com/books?id=xxE6rybpvHQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Boxer+Rebellions&hl=zh-CN&ei=yVbSTJPgG4zSuwOFpYmBDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false



OK, Harrington and Perry stated that foreigners were hated as devils, not human beings. Why is it that our Wikipedia article did not mention this important statement? Boxers were out there to hate, to murder, to burn, to exterminate "Devils", not human beings. Arilang talk 08:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Albert Feuerwerker,S. Cheng

Chinese Communist studies of modern Chinese history By :Albert Feuerwerker,S. Cheng Page:113 http://books.google.com/books?id=AqwVM1_oRP4C&pg=PA113&dq=Boxer+Rebellions&hl=zh-CN&ei=yVbSTJPgG4zSuwOFpYmBDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Boxer%20Rebellions&f=false

OK, to all other users, does not this look familiar? Oh, I see, this looks like the lead of our own Boxer Rebellion article. Funny though, don't you think? Why is it the two versions do look similar, is it a coincident, or is it not? I wonder. Arilang talk 08:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


OK, to all the editors who are interested in this article. This is exactly the conclusion a reader would reach after reading our Boxer Rebellion article. Funny though, you may ask, why is it that Mao Tse-tung, dead since 1976, and yet still can influence our Wikipedia editors, so much so that Mao's views are reflected in Wikipedia history article. Can anyone tell me the reason? Arilang talk 09:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Larry Clinton Thompson

http://books.google.com/books?id=5K9BN96p1hcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Boxer+Rebellion&hl=zh-CN&ei=9oTSTMmTNJH0vQOVvJS_Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q&f=false William Scott Ament and the Boxer Rebellion: heroism, hubris and the " Ideal Missionary"



OK, foreigners were seen as devils, demons, and barbarians, were to be destroyed, or exterminated. " Foreign goods of every variety they will destroy. " Well, regardless of who the owners were, everything foreign were destroyed. These were the real boxers. Or were they? I wonder. Arilang talk 11:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)



According to Thompson, the ruling class, the Manchus, would not like to see the Boxers, who were mostly Han Chinese, to become out of control and powerful, and maybe one day so powerful that they might become a threat to the Manchu empire. A good point. Can this be included in the lead section? I wonder. Arilang talk 12:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Xiaorong Han of Butler University

Chinese discourses on the peasant, 1900-1949 By：Xiaorong Han(Dr. Xiaorong Han - Associate Professor, Department of History and Anthropology, Butler University)

http://books.google.com/books?id=oxTe1YYZa7MC&pg=PA20&dq=Boxer+Rebellion&hl=zh-CN&ei=d4DTTJLrL4iSuwPm8MSMBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=Boxer%20Rebellion&f=false


OK, Sun Yat-sen and Lu Xun called the Boxers "bandits", and educated Chinese called them

  • (1) xenophobia
  • (2) ignorant
  • (3) had no political consciousness.
  • (4) belief in the story that "foreign devils" killed Chinese children and turned them into canned meat.

But the Wikipedia current version of Boxer Rebellion painted the Boxers as patriotic as well as anti-imperialist. Now I am beginning to wonder. Arilang talk 04:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lu Xun was prominent in the May Fourth Movement, which advocated completely destroying chinese Culture, which was exactly what Mao Zedong did in the Cultural Revolution. Who says his opinion matters? Did he ever hold political office? NO
one of the Generals who fought the foreigners in the Boxer Rebellion, Ma Fuxiang, became a high ranking Kuomintang official and even became brother to Chiang Kaishek. Ma Fuxiang fought at Battle of Langfang, side by side with Boxers against foreigners, and Chiang Kaishek and he sworn to be brothers.
Ma Fuxiang was a general in the Boxer War, against the western side, and he was a member of the KMT, Lu Xun was not, Ma Fuxiang commanded massive military forces in China, he is more signifigant thatn Lu Xun.
White Christian european westerners often accused Jews of Blood libel a false accusation that Jews cooked the blood of christian children into matzo bread. I do not see how white europeans are more civilized than chinese.
in addition, you have often stated that westerners and everything about them is superior to China. If that is true, how did the Ming dynasty defeat the Portuguese navy with cannons at Second Battle of Tamao (1522)? how were dutch defeated by chinese at Siege of Fort Zeelandia? How did the Qing dynasty defeat British at Battle of Taku Forts (1859), and Chinese defeated the french at Battle of Cầu Giấy (Paper Bridge)?Дунгане (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
In the Boxer rebellion, one of the victories by Chinese forces which smashed the eight nation alliance was Battle of Langfang, that was clear chinese victory, the British Admiral Seymour was arrogant and thought chinese were inferior, but he was beaten.Дунгане (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


User Дунгане, I know our opinions differ a lot, well I also hope that through cooperation, we can improve this article for the benefit of everyday readers.

Books by professor Xiaorong Han, Larry Clinton Thompson, Albert Feuerwerker, S. Cheng, Peter Harrington,Michael Perry, Lynn Bodin, are good source for this article, and I cannot see any reason why they are not being used.

Just to answer some of your points:

  • (1) Lu Xun and Sun Yat-sen were both quoted by professor Han, for calling Boxers as "bandits", and whether Lu Xun was holding office or not is irrelevant.
  • (2) I had pointed out quite a few times already, let me say it again, it is OK to include "Muslim Army" in this article, but at the moment, the section is too messy, and need a good clean up.
  • (3) Please read Han Dynasty and Ming Dynasty, these two are very good wikipedia articles which have very high standard.
  • (4) Please stop throwing racist mud at me, it wouldn't work.
  • (5) Quote: you have often stated that westerners and everything about them is superior to China. Unquoted. When and where on Wikipedia had I ever made this kind of statement? Arilang talk 11:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F

I have not used racial, sexual, political, or other epithets, i have not used affilication ad hominem attacks, i have not linked to axternal attacks, i have not threatened to do legal action, or violence, or vandalism, and i have not accused Arilang without evidence, I have submitted plently of evidence that Arilang1234 is racist against Manchus.Дунгане (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I think Arilang should really have a good think about his own arguments. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Arilang's copy and paste and speculation

The Qing Manchu court agreed to behead Yuxian, the Manchu governor responsible for Taiyuan massacre, and it also handed over the Manchu captain En Hai to the foreigners to be beheaded, but they refused to execute General Dong Fuxiang, who was Han, and responsible for a lot of the killings of foreigners around Beijing, Dong even had the Japanese chancellors heart cut out of his body, but he was not punished, neither were the other muslim Generals who also killed foreigners. Your accusations that Qing was unfair are unfounded and not based in any fact. Lets remember, that one of the Generals who fought the foreigners in the Boxer Rebellion, Ma Fuxiang, became a high ranking Kuomintang official and even became brother to Chiang Kaishek. Ma Fuxiang fought at Battle of Langfang, side by side with Boxers against foreigners, and Chiang Kaishek and he sworn to be brothers.

This is what a "European physician", said about Chinese people- "Don't look so glum, it is not nearly as bad as it seems. Those Chinese die like dogs. Their feelings are less intense than ours by fifty percent at least"

Arilang completely ignores the Fact that europeans like this physician, and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany claimed Chinese were less than human, and Arilang goes onto a rant about "devils".

Douglas Kerr has an MA from Cambridge University and PhD (Comparative Literature) from the University of Warwick, and has worked in Hong Kong since 1979. He is currently a proffesor in Hong Kong.

Professor Douglas Kerr wrote in his book, "Critical Zone 3: A Forum of Chinese and Western Knowledge", which was based on collaboration among scholars from Hong Kong, mainland China, the United States, and Europe.

In the book, it says, "In his 1918 speech on "Civil Rights," Sun Yat-sen acknowledged that "the boxers' courage was invincible at the outset." In the Yangcun battle, they fought three thousand soldiers led by Admiral Seymour "fearlessly, to the last drop fo blood... Their courage was enthralling and most admirable. It was only after this bloody battle that Westerners realized that China still had some nationalistic thought and a nation like that was unconquerable."

Yikuang, Prince Qing, one of the most corrupt Manchu princes, was opposed to the Boxers. he was replaced with the Manchu Zaiyi, Prince Duan, who was pro boxer. The western "Seymour expedition was completely without Chinese authorization". at Langfang, the "Chinese side won a a major victory"

According to international law, invading another countries territory without authorization is illegal. The western powers were clearly the aggressors.Дунгане (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234's position on this article is almost exactly the same as White supremacist Arthur Kemp

Arthur Kemp, a well known White Supremacist who doubts the number of jews killed in the holocaust, has a position on the Boxer Rebellion almost identical to that of User:Arilang1234. He published a book - "March of the Titans: a history of the White Race", which discusses the Boxer rebellion in Chapter 45. link to text of Chapter 45 of Arthur Kemp's book.Дунгане (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(note, i am using this example to refute User:Arilang1234's Association fallacy , in [which he claimed that since that the view in the article is the same of that as Mao Zedong, that it must be false.Дунгане (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Apart from your conflict with Arilang, that material does raise an important question. I imagine that what passes for fringe white supremacist attitudes now would be pretty close to the mainstream views of the contemporary Europeans and Americans of the 19th century. Right now the "depictions" section doesn't say at all how the countrymen of the ostensibly targeted foreigners and their academics and press portrayed the Boxers during and after the uprising; could they have reacted something like how Kemp did? Quigley (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't so much where people's views come from, as Wikipedia isn't a blog or forum. What counts is what sources and citations are provided. Controversial text without supporting citations can be removed. John Smith's (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Lead section's controversial text

Let us have a good look at those controversial text at the lead section:

Page 21 of "Chinese discourses on the peasant, 1900-1949" By：Xiaorong Han

OK, according to professor Han, Boxers were xenophobic ignorant bandits who had no political consciousness, yet the lead section the Boxers were branded as "anti-colonialist, anti-Christian ", which is a highly social political term. One might ask, could ignorant peasant bandits ever understand the meaning of "anti-colonialist" ? Arilang talk 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone can understand foreigners arriving and pushing their weight around, and be against it. (Hohum @) 02:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Boxers received massive support from nearly the entire Chinese population. Dowager Empress Cixi herself said- "Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?" Boxers had massive support from chinese population, since western imperialist powers were killing chinese civilians

Joseph Esherick (1988). The origins of the Boxer Uprising. University of California Press. p. 289. ISBN 0520064593. Retrieved 2010-6-28. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

the German Kaiser Wilhelm II provoked the Boxers first, encouraging his German imperialist army to commit violence on Chinese by making the "iron fist of Germany heavy on their necks" He used Yellow Peril fears to provide and excuse for stealing land in concessions from china, by formenting ethnic hatred From White western europeans toward asians also look here For kaiser wilhelm and yellow peril and here
The real "leader" of the Boxers was not Cao Futian, it was Zaiyi, Prince Duan, who had real anti imperialist aims and wanted to drive western powers out of China.
Wang Zi-Ping was a Muslim Boxer, and he felt insulted when white westerners claim they were superior to chinese, he often challenged them to fights to defeat them to prove that they were wrong. Proffesor Dru C. Gladneytalks about Wang Zi Ping in his book "Muslim Chinese: ethnic nationalism in the People's Republic" on page 199.Дунгане (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


User:Дунгане:
  • (1) Quote:"The Boxers received massive support from nearly the entire Chinese population. " Unquoted. The fact that "Boxers were xenophobic ignorant bandits who had no political consciousness" remains the same, which can be back up by books written by Han, Thompson, Feuerwerker,Cheng, Harrington,Perry, and Bodin. Boxers could be supported by 100% Chinese or 1% Chinese, it doesn't change anything. Esherick is a reliable source, so are Han, Thompson, Feuerwerker,Cheng, Harrington,Perry, and Bodin. And on page 290 of "The origins of the Boxer Uprising" by Esherick, no mention of Boxers being "anti-colonialist" can be found. If no supporting citations can be found, I suggest the term "anti-colonialist" to be removed from this article, so that everyday readers would not get confused.
  • (2) Quote:"German Kaiser Wilhelm II provoked the Boxers first" Unquoted. That may be true, again, still, it would not change anything. Being provoked first would never automatically turn "xenophobic ignorant bandits" into saints.
  • (3) Quote:"Wang Zi-Ping was a Muslim Boxer", User:Дунгане, be real, whether it is 1900, or 2010, being a Muslim, do not give you the right to chop off people's head, nor to burn down buildings, which were exactly what Boxers did in 1900. Bandits were bandits, looters were looters, no make no difference when the bandits were Muslim or not. You should know better than that. Arilang talk 04:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think everyday readers will be confused, since they will just think it means they were opposed against the colonialists, which they were. However, it could be phrased better.
Who was proved first is a matter of record, not an excuse for their behaviour. (Hohum @) 17:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Arilang, look at Shirk (Islam). Muslims are forbidden to worship idols and do not believe and polytheist rituals, the Boxers were polytheist and believe in spirits and idols, Wang did not join because he "helieved" in their superstition, he joined, like many other Boxers did, to fight imperialist powers, descriptions of him, by people like Proffesor Dru C Gladney make it clear that he was against arrogant western imperialists, because they insulted chinese and stole land.Дунгане (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 has a serious problem with grasping the concept of "POV"

Author Bruce A. Elleman, . Assistant Professor of History, Texas Christian University, says "The Boxer Uprising was not a typical conflict by any means, but a combination of demstica and anti-imperialist war. the Qing government coopted the Boxers into an anti-imperialist movement against the foreigners."

James Louis Hevia says "particularly regarding anti-imperialist popular movements such as the Boxers

David D. Buck is a professor emeritus of Chinese history at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a former editor of the Journal of Asian Studiesm, and he says, "In 1900 when China faced an immediate crisis of being carved up by the imperialists, the Boxers' anti-imperialist struggle received the overwhelming support and sympathy of the masses.

Author Kazuko Ono says, the Boxer uprising developed out of these anti-christian activitiies to become a full-scale anti-imperialist struggle." the boxer movement raised the anti-imperialist slogan "Support the Qing, Destroy the Foreign" "With their faith, they organized the populace and went forth to do battle with imperialism."

I urge Arilang to stop blatanly inserting POV into the article, and using his own actions to judge on whether something is right or not, i do not see the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust saying, "It was a horrific and bloody mass racist muder", despite the fact that it was, Wikipedia maintains neutral POV and does not say so. therefore, criticizing the Boxers for doing wrong has no place here.Дунгане (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Author Kazuko Ono also says- In theif efforts the spread the gospel, missionaries had penetrated the interior of China where no white person had been before. Following these missarionaries came gunboats and foreign businesses. These missionaries and some of their converts presumed upon the power and might of imperialism to seize pesants' lands and property for their churhces and to intervene in lawuits. No matter how perverse the demands of the missionaries might be, officials could do nothing to resist them. In this situation, dispute between Chinese and Christians brok out across the land. The Boxer uprising developed out of these anti-Christian activities to become a full-scale anti-imperialist struggle. The main participants in the Boxer movement were peasants, craftsmen, andtransport workers who had lost their lands and jobs with the inroads made by imperialism and China's endemic natural disastersДунгане (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors are not here "to judge on whether something is right or not", we are here to add content with supportive citations. You are welcome to add content such as book(1) book(2) and book(3) said Boxers were XXX and XXX, no one would stop you when the content is properly cited. A win win situation can be achieved, for example, professor so and so called them "Bandits", other professors called them "anti-imperialists", as long as the article is well structured. Arilang talk 05:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You cannot say that they are bandits' in the lead, because the secondary sources by proffesor Han and the others do not describe them as bandits, they say that people like Lu Xun describe them as bandits, i can put anti imperialist in the lead, because the secondary sources i used by Professor Elleman say directly that they were anti imperialist, Lu Xun is a primary source, and you need to put in another section that is was Lu Xun's or whoever's opinion that the Boxers were bandits.Дунгане (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
See wikipedia policy on primary and secondary sources Since Proffesor Han said that it was Lu Xun who said that they were bandits, you can only put in the article that "Lu Xun said the Boxers were XXX", not that the "Boxers were XXX". IF proffesor han or another proffesor with a PHD themselves described them as bandits, then it can be put alongside anti imperialist, but you cannot remove the "anti imperilaist" part.Дунгане (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


侯宜傑

Hou Yijie(侯宜傑 ) 1938年4月生，江苏沛县人，编审。中国社会科学院研究员。主要学术专长是清末立宪运动 Hou Yijie DOB 4/1938, researcher at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, specialised in end of Qing history, author of the book 「神拳」義和團的真面目 "The true face of the Spirit possessed boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan."

http://news.163.com/special/00013G47/hyj_list.html.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3FP92a7ACSQC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E6%8B%B3%E5%8C%AA%E5%8F%98%E4%B9%B1%E7%BA%AA%E4%BA%8B&source=bl&ots=WTHeBzFt_9&sig=OmXRWLLoRBxXfL4qlPk8WNGpAEI&hl=zh-CN&ei=7X3WTLO7OIiKvgOH_JW4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CD8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E6%8B%B3%E5%8C%AA%E5%8F%98%E4%B9%B1%E7%BA%AA%E4%BA%8B&f=false

神拳義和團的真面目
作者 侯宜傑
出版社 ／ 秀威資訊科技股份有限公司
出版日期 ／ 2010/10/08
ISBN 13 ／9789862215319


The true face of the Spirit possessed boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan

The killing of Hui Chinese

Page 133/144 Beside killing Han Chinese who were either Christians and non-Christians, Chinese who were of Hui ethnicity were also targeted. On 20/6/1900, Qian Men(Front Door) mosque was burned down, so were houses belong to Hui muslims. On 13/7/1900, 3000 Boxers attacked 200 plus families at Sandong Province Hai Fong county, 80% of the houses were burned down, and 300 plus people, including children were murdered. A mosque at Tianjin Mu Jia Village was torched.[1]

Arilang, it is SOURCED in the article that the Boxers took orders from the Hui Kansu Braves army, the muslim army killed ever more foreigners after the Boxers left Beijing, they hated foreigners as much as the Boxers.
"principally an army of muslims from Gansu, who hated christians"
imperial trops from kansu commanded by the moslem general tung fu-hsiang, who were also in the vicinity and notorious for their hatred of foreigners
the Kansu braves joined the Boxers in hunting down chinese christians who spied for the foreigners
The Manchu prince Ching sent his bannermen to attack the Boxers AND Kansu braves who were besieging the legationsДунгане (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


If you read "The true face of the Spirit Possessed Boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan", (Can you read Chinese?), Yi Ho Tuan was not a homogeneous group, far from it, there were many groups and there was one leader for each group, and all the groups were independent from each other. And so called "popular supported by the people" was just lies, in reality, the people were afraid of them because they were robbers, bandits, and murderers. I know you want to advocate your Hui ethnic point of view, but you have come to the wrong place. If you can read Chinese, I suggest you go to read 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and of course, 「神拳」義和團的真面目 , by 侯宜傑. Arilang talk 04:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Yi Ho Tuan Incantations

  • (1)Incantation to invite the coming of spirits.
  • (2)Incantation to provide protection against spear and fire.
  • (3)Incantation to provide protection against any harm.

The boxers claimed that once these incantations were chanted, Chinese spirits would descend to offer protection, so that cannon fire or gun shots would not harm the human body.[2]

Spreading rumors to attack Christianity

Page 153.

The Boxers wrote poetry to spread rumors against Christianity:

Infidel, they don't worship ancestors,
No morality,
their children come from incest,
If you don't believe, have a look,
these devils all have blue eyes.
Why no rain, earth is scorched,
Because the churches upset the heaven.

不信神　忘祖先

男無倫 女行姦　

鬼孩俱是子母產

如不信　仔細觀　

鬼子眼珠俱發藍

天無雨　地焦旱

全是教堂止住天

I would like an explanation from Arilang inserting "undefined", which caused broken links all over the article

User:Arilang1234 has added the word "undefined" across the article, breaking numerous links and causing massive mispelling, not only once, but twice here and here If you continue with that, it will be considered vandalism.Дунгане (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your info, well, I think my PC had been planted with some sort of bugs, because I did not, and had no reason to do so. The only thing I can do is to reformat my hard drive and reinstall XP. Thanks again Дунгане. Arilang talk 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 falsely accuses me of Communist propaganda, but he himself uses communist sources.

the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which Arilang quotes, is run by the Communist party of China and can be regarded as little more than a propaganda arm for the Communist party.

Also, Arilang1235 alleges that Communist posters are nianhua. If we look at the site he presented, put it into a translator, it explains nianhua were drawn by peasants for lunar new year and spring festival. Coloured woodblock prints like this were commonly made in China to decorate houses at the New Year; they are often known as nianhua or 'New Year prints'. From the middle of the nineteenth century, nianhua were also produced as broadsheets, to be pasted on walls to bring news to an illiterate or semi-literate public.

Last time i checked, the Communists banned spring festival during the Cultural Revolution, allegedly because it was feudal, and the Communists replaced Chinese lunar new year with the Western calender and New Year.

Not only that, Arilang is using mainland chinese websites and tons of other Communists sources, and accuses me of using communist sources, when all my sources are from westsern proffesors with PHD degrees.Дунгане (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, tell me one simple thing, User:Дунгане, can you read Chinese? If you can, my advice is, please read 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, these are very important source that nobody can ignore. Arilang talk 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


User:Дунгане, all I am saying is, Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic, because there are two versions of it:
  • (1) Version one: The Chinese government official version, in that version, Boxers were patriotic anti-imperialists hero.
  • (2) Version two: According to independent historians (Chinese and non-Chinese, including Yuan Weishi), Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists.

I have read a lot of assays, books, including 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目 "The true face of the Spirit possessed boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan. I have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic.

About your statement " Arilang is using mainland chinese websites and tons of other Communists sources", User:Дунгане, time to grow up, don't you know that not all the mainland websites are pro-government, have you heard of Yuan Weishi? And "accuses me of using communist sources, when all my sources are from westsern proffesors with PHD degrees." User:Дунгане, don't you know that there are western people(scholars and non-scholars) pushing pro communist China's view points, have you never heard of Edgar Snow ? Arilang talk 08:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I challenge you to name a single author of a source that i used, that is pro communist in any way. All of them have no affiliation to the Communist party of China.Дунгане (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yuan Weishi

Yuan Weishi 袁伟时 http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/Content_Archive.cfm?Channel=br&Path=3625624052/15br1a.cfm 原载2006年4月8日出版的亚洲周刊二十卷十五期 是广州中山大学教授袁伟时写给《中国青年报》「冰点」周刊，反驳该刊被封后复刊时所刊的张海鹏的题为《反帝反封建是近代中国历史主题》的文章。

Translation: Because of support, and manipulation by Empress Dowager Cixi,Zaiyi, Prince Duan, Boxers Rebellion had developed into a terrible disaster in China. Governments have responsibility to maintain normal social orders, and to offer protection for people's lives and property. The authority could not protect foreigners and it's own people against the violent acts of the Boxers, is the sign that it was a rotten authority.[3]


If we take a look at the Ronglu article, which is sourced by western proffesors with PHD degrees, we will see that all of Yuan Weishi's allegations are false. Ronglu was pro foreign, and deliberately sabotaged the chinese army, and even ordered General Nie Shicheng to kill Boxers and protect foreigners, Ronglu denied artillery to the muslim army besieging the legations, Ronglu sent food to the foreigners in the legations, and allowed Prince Qing to attack the Kansu Braves and Boxers.
Not only that, Proffesor Yuan fails to explain why the Qing authority is obligated to protect invading foreign forces when they illegally entered chinese territory, killed chinese civilians, and Europeans in the legations also hoarded food for themselves and refused to give them to chinese christians. Foreign christians missionaries seized land from innocent chinese peasants, the Qing court was not obligated to protect thieves like these missionaries.
Ronglu also ordered General Nie to protect the railway. As a result, the invading western army was able to escape the Kansu Braves after the Battle of Langfang by jumping on a train and fleeing. Since when is a country obligated to allow its enemies to travel freely?
Unlike western proffesors, people from mainland China like Yuan Weishi, who are proffesors of philosophy, not of history are highly emotional, and the extreme POV language they use puts to question the reliability of their works.Дунгане (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears you are suggesting Western professors are impartial while Chinese professors are not. I hope you can support such a generalization with hard evidence. By the way, philosophy is a much more cerebral subject than history and is much closer to the domain of objective analysis. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


User:Дунгане, can you read Chinese?

On your question:"Not only that, Proffesor Yuan fails to explain why the Qing authority is obligated to protect invading foreign forceswhen they illegally entered chinese territory, killed chinese civilians," if you can read Chinese, Yuan has explained it very well in "揭開義和團及反帝反封建真面目", published on YZZK.com. I would like to ask user:Дунгане one more time, "Can you read Chinese?"

On your statement:"Unlike western proffesors, people from mainland China likeYuan Weishi, who are proffesors of philosophy, not ofhistory are highly emotional, and the extreme POV language they use puts to question the reliability of their works.", well, user:Дунгане, who do you think you are, to attack professor Yuan Weishi, calling him "highly emotional"? Arilang talk 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before

User:Arilang1234 has inserted unreliable translations into articles. saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here I put the wikisource article through google translate in the link, so everyone can read it, and see that Arilang1234 either cannot read what he himself added to the wikisource article, since he created it, or is just flat out lying. I don't accuse people of lying lightly, but it appears in this case that Arilang1234 deliberately misrepresented sources.Дунгане (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Arilang, Leo Tolstoy and Mark Twain are Communist propaganda activists

The Russian writer Leo Tolstoy praised the Boxers, and called western atrocities against Chinese civilians during the Boxer rebellion "Christian brutality". He died in 1910, 11 years before the Chinese communist party was founded. According to Arilang1234, he works for the Chinese communist party's propaganda organs since he praises the Boxers......

William Henry Chamberlin, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Ohio State University (1960). The Russian review, Volume 19. Blackwell. p. 115. Retrieved 2010-10-31.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Walter G. Moss (2008). An age of progress?: clashing twentieth-century global forces. Anthem Press. p. 3. ISBN 1843313014. Retrieved 2010-10-31.

Mark Twain, a famous American author, also praised the Boxers for wanting to expel foreigners from China. Mark Twain said : "Why should not China be free from the foreigners, who are only making trouble on her soil? If they would only all go home, what a pleasant place China would be for the Chinese! We do not allow Chinamen to come here, and I say in all seriousness that it would be a graceful thing to let China decide who shall go there. China never wanted foreigners any more than foreigners wanted Chinamen, and on this question I am with the Boxers every time. The Boxer is a patriot. He loves his country better than he does the countries of other people. I wish him success. The Boxer believes in driving us out of his country. I am a Boxer too, for I believe in driving him out of our country."

According to Arilang, Mark Twain to is somehow working for the propaganda organs of the Communist party, who magically traveled back in time to convince Twain to write communist propaganda decades before the Communist party was founded.Дунгане (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mark Twain was also involved in the Twain–Ament Indemnities Controversy, in which Twain criticized the imperialist Christian missionaries for stealing land from innocent chinese peasants. According to Arilang, this makes Twain a Chinese communist party member.Дунгане (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One more time, can you read Chinese?

User:Дунгане, I am asking you one more time, Can You Read Chinese? Just a simple question, and I am still waiting for a reply. Arilang talk 02:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can read, and no, wikipedia guidelines do not require me to take mandatory reading assignments from you. Telling me to read decades old books isn't going to help improve the article.Дунгане (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, now I know that you can read Chinese, then 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, 「神拳」義和團的真面目, all these articles, and books, content very important information on Boxers, they are not just "decades old books", these books, and articles, were often quoted, and used as reference books by Chinese scholars such as Yuan Weishi, 侯宜傑(中国社会科学院研究员), 张鸣教授(中国人民大学政治学系主任), plus others. I know that there are two schools of thoughts on this controversial topic, and I have never said anything like "only one school of thought is allowed on wikipedia". Now that I know User:Дунгане can read Chinese, and why is it that he(or she) just refuse to read them, so that he(or she) can learn more about the real Boxers? And Yuan Weishi has written an article called 揭開義和團及反帝反封建真面目 on YZZK.com, http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/Content_Archive.cfm?Channel=br&Path=3625624052/15br1a.cfm, and why is it that User:Дунгане simply refuse to read it, instead, calling Yuan Weishi "highly emotional" . Well, emotional or not, "Yuan Weishi is a professor of philosophy at Zhongshan University in Guangzhou, China.", and his view points are to be respected, especially when we are editing this very important article, The Boxer Rebellion. Arilang talk 06:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Third opinion by ResidentAnthropologist
....


I am Just going to say based on my observations of ya'll are ready for WP:MEDCAB or Marriage. Humor aside, I am not an expert in Chinese history an Do think a some formal WP:Dispute Resolution might be advisable as I think this is Outside WP:3O of what can handle. I am going to leave it Up in case of some one else want there want to Give a better more informed opinion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kuomintang has also called Western Christian missionaries imperialist

The Kuomintang New Guangxi Clique attacked western christians and Chinese christians as imperialists in the 1920's and 1930's

Diana Lary (1974). Region and nation: the Kwangsi clique in Chinese politics, 1925-1937. Cambridge University Press. p. 99. ISBN 0521202043. Retrieved 2010-06-28.

During the Northern Expedition, the Kuomintang incited anti-foreign, anti-western sentiment. Portraits of Sun Yatsen replaced the crucifix in several churches, KMT posters proclaimed- "Jesus Christ is dead. Why not worship something alive such as Nationalism?". Foreign missionaries were attacked and anti foreign riots broke out.

Jonathan Fenby (2005). Chiang Kai Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost. Carroll & Graf Publishers. p. 126. ISBN 0786714840. Retrieved 2010-06-28.

Arilang1234 is saying that only the Communist party is against western, christian missionaries. This is false. the Kuomintang was equally opposed to them. By the way, i have already noted that Arilang1234 criticizing the position of my sources of being similar to Communist party position as an ad hominem attack, which is not allowed on wikipedia. This conversation should have been over already, i did not use a single communist source, yet Arilang continues to claim that i am using communist party sources. If you don't believe me, check the article yourself to see if i added communist sources, it would be clear that Arilang1234 is not telling the truth.Дунгане (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Westeners treated chinese christians more savagely than boxers

The European westerners saved hoards of food for themselves, and refused to give them to the Chinese christian converts. The Europeans drank champagne while the Chinese christians were forced to subsist with tree bark and leaves. Max Boot (2003). The savage wars of peace: small wars and the rise of American power. Basic Books. p. 80. ISBN 046500721X. Retrieved 2010-10-31.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Дунгане (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is Arilang1234 inserting Cantonese terms, when all the Boxers and northerners spoke Mandarin?

Why is Arilang1234 bent on inserting CANTONESE TERMS "gweilo", into the article, when the Mandarin Chinese speaking Boxers, and the Imperial Court, which spoke the Beijing dialect of Mandarin, never spoke Cantonese?

The Boxers refered to the Westerners as "foreign devils" guǐzi(鬼子). They never used the Cantonese term Gweilo.

The Muslim Kansu Braves, who were from Gansu province, spoke the north western dialect of mandarin, the Gansu dialect, saying "Bring out the Erh Mao Tzu!" Erh Mao Tzu, means secondary devil, refering to christians, and is a mandarin expression, not cantonese. The Boxers and Imperial troops never spoke a single word of cantonese.Дунгане (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For Christ's sake. It is as if you aren't spamming complaints over every last bit of insignificant matter. If you do a little research, gweilo and guizi have the exact same meaning and share the same page in Wikipedia. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
i suggest you do some research before making assertions. Guizi is 鬼子, in chinese, while Gweilo is 鬼佬, different characters at the ending, Arilang 1234 presented a source in chinese characters, that calls its authenticity into doubt if the characters are totally different than what was used in the source. not only that, Guizi means foreign devil, it does not mean ghost men, which is central to Arilang1234's claim that foreigners were seen as unhuman by the boxers.Дунгане (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
They are the same thing. Do you even know Chinese? Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
鬼佬 and 鬼子 are DIFFERENT CHARACTERS- What i was saying that Arilang claimed it specifically said Gweilo, which is 鬼佬, yet 鬼佬, is a 'cantonese term, not mandarin. I speak mandarin and have never heard it used, ever. Arilang1234 claimed it came directly from boxer texts, yet the text he posted on this talk page all said 鬼子. The cantonese word for 子, sounds nothing like "Lo".Дунгане (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Дунгане, "I speak mandarin and have never heard it used, ever.", well, maybe it is because you are ignorant, you only have yourself to blame. Ever heard of Yum Cha, and Dim Sum, and Chiang Kai-shek ? Arilang talk 05:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Replying to both Дунгане and Arilang, this dispute is becoming absurdly pedantic. There is no need to have a dispute over something so minor. 鬼子 and 鬼佬 are technically different words, but they have similar meanings and similar connotations. A very easy fix to this, would be to use Guizi while linking to the Gweilo article, as in:[[Gweilo|Guizi (鬼子)]]. Do we really need to fight over an issue as trivial as this?--hkr (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Chiang Kaishek and Sun Yatsen despised May Fourth Movement intellectuals like Lu Xun. Chiang promoted Confucianism in the New Life Movement, Lu hated confucianism. Joseph T. Chen (1971). The May fourth movement in Shanghai: the making of a social movement in modern China. Brill Archive. p. 13. Retrieved 2010-06-28.
However, Mao Zedong agreed with Lu Xun's views against Chinese culture, starting Cultural Revolution to fulfill Lu and the other May Fourth movement's plans.Дунгане (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
How is that relevant? My impression is that hkr summarized this issue very well. If you have a bone to pick with Arilang and cannot stop yourself from beating dead horses, you may want to continue this in his talk page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I'm not the one who is spamming 20 plus paragraphs onto this talk page, from wikisource, and saying "this needs to be translated". Arilang1234 has done that like over fifty times, go look in the archives and on this current page.Дунгане (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Just by looking at this page, I'd say you have, by far, started the most topics and most of which are complaints about Arilang. Also, you still have not acknowledged that you have started some unnecessary bickering over negligible differences between 鬼子 and 鬼佬. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Just by looking at the archives, AND this page, Arilang1234 spammed long paragraphs in simplified characters, doing some "Strange" translations, he type Guizi 鬼子 in his paragraph, but transliterated it as "gweilo". Lets say for one second that the Boxers "Did" speak cantonese. His transliteration is still off, since 子 is not lo in cantonese. This is a clear case of an attempt to assert cantonese linguistic superiority over chinese articles, which is off. Keep in mind that not all of us speak cantonese, which is not the official language of any country, and insignifigant. not only that, Arilang1234 has threatened to attack living people in in the archives on this talk page. Go look yourself, i already notified admins about his threat. and all my "complaints", are legitimate, i provided Diffs to show Arilang1234's bad faith edits.Дунгане (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how there is a case of asserting cantonese linguistic superiority. The fact that you persisted in pushing a point that is clearly incorrect on a matter that is clearly insignificant already contradicts your assrtion that "all [your] "complaints", are legimate". Since I refuse to continue to beat this dead horse, I will leave it at that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another bizarre and false accusation

"Arilang1234 has threatened to attack living people in in the archives on this talk page", User:Дунгане, please show me the evidence, and allow me to remind you again, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boxer Rebellion article." If you wish to talk about my editing style, go to my talk page. Arilang talk 00:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Дунгане has some legitimate concerns about POV issues. Adding content advocating the opposite POV as you did, and not fixing the existing POV issues, is not a constructive response. However, Дунгане is getting slightly pedantic over some relatively trivial problems. Let's all keep it cool here, I'm editing the lead right now to remove the POV from both sides of this dispute.--res Laozi speak 01:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Threat quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- " 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.Дунгане (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Pieing, Pieing is the act of throwing a pie at a person. This can be a political action when the target is an authority figure, politician, or celebrity and can be used as a means of protesting against the target's political beliefs, or against a perceived flaw — e.g.arrogance or hubris — in the target's character. Perpetrators generally regard the act as a form of ridicule to embarrass and humiliate the victim. In some U.S. states pieing may conform to definitions of battery, but not assault. Pieing and pie fights is a staple of slapstick comedy, and pie "tosses" are also common charity fundraising events. Arilang talk 03:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/07/09/2949303.htm

Egg thrown at Gillard ABC News

Published: Friday, July 9, 2010 1:00 AEST Julia Gillard has escaped unhurt after a protester threw an egg at her during her Perth visit. Arilang talk 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead cleanup

I've cleaned up the lead, removing much of the POV, rephrasing and reworking the content to reflect a much more neutral view. Hopefully, this will address complaints regarding both points of view. Are both parties content with the changes? --res Laozi speak 04:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If editors do read some of the Yuan Weishi essays, among Chinese scholars and historians, there are two different view points towards BR. I think this needs to be mentioned at the lead, to make it more neutral.


Arilang talk 04:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Both viewpoints are already mentioned. Whether nor not this specific quote should be in it, is debatable. I've already added the quote by Sun Yat-sen, with the Mark Twain quote representing the opposite viewpoint. Having two quotes for one point of view, and one for another, is not neutral, would you agree?--res Laozi speak 04:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the notion that the Boxer Rebellion is a contentious topic debated among Chinese scholars, is already in the lead: "However, perceptions of the Boxers, among 20th century Chinese intellectuals and modern scholars, remains heavily nuanced."--res Laozi speak 04:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Do we really need such a long quotation from Mark Twain? Since when he had become an expert on Chinese 20th century history?

And, the words "heavily nuanced", couldn't we use other better words? The Chinese translation of "nuance" is 细微差别, according to online dictionary, it is :"a very slight difference or variation in color or tone". According to Yuan Weishi, Boxers were bandits and arsonists, whereas Chinese school test books(which represent official governmental view points) portray them as patriots. There ought to be better words to describe the differences. Arilang talk 04:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese translation does not accurately convey the meaning of the English word, which is to be expected. Nuanced does not specifically mean slight as in "small", a more accurate defintion would be "subtle" with a connotation of "complex". But, to ameliorate your concerns, I think a revision to "nuanced, complex, and contentious" should be satisfactory.--res Laozi speak 05:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The above opening sentence has terms like: "The Boxer Rebellion...was a nationalist movement", "opposing Western imperialism", all these view points should clearly be labeled "according to Chinese government", because these are certainly not Yuan Weishi's view points. Arilang talk 05:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"According to the Chinese government". This is a straw man, and ignores the topic at hand. I don't care about the Chinese government; my goal is to ensure that the lead remains neutral. In the English language, nationalist has no connotation, positive or negative. To give you examples: the French Revolution, Mount Rushmore, and Nazism could all be considered nationalistic. Nationalism is a neutral term that simply means "identification with a political entity", which is perfectly descriptive with what the Boxer Rebellion was. And the Boxer Rebellion did oppose imperialism. The Communists also opposed imperialism, this doesn't mean that they were right, only that opposing imperialism was one of their beliefs. You can debate whether their beliefs are justified, but that does not change that fact that they did believe in it. As for Yuan Weishi, see the section on "due weight", the objective of the article is not to give a single person's viewpoints more weight than any other, especially if the view has already been represented in the article.--res Laozi speak 06:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Chinese discourses on the peasant, 1900-1949 By：Xiaorong Han(Dr. Xiaorong Han -Associate Professor, Department of History and Anthropology, Butler University)

http://books.google.com/books?id=oxTe1YYZa7MC&pg=PA20&dq=Boxer+Rebellion&hl=zh-CN&ei=d4DTTJLrL4iSuwPm8MSMBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=Boxer%20Rebellion&f=false

User hkr, allow me to remind you that Xiaorong Han:"nevertheless believed that they(Boxers) had no political consciousness". Shouldn't we take professor Han's viewpoint into consideration? Arilang talk 06:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. I've already mentioned the "bandits" viewpoint in the lead.
  2. The sentence you quoted is not professor Han's viewpoint. He is quoting Chen Shaobai's, who was (as the same page states), sympathetic to the Boxers, considering them "brave and righteous" (using professor Han's own words), despite their ignorance.
  3. The idea that the Boxers "had no political consciousness" is a retrospective analysis of the event. The Boxers considered themselves nationalists, and did so in opposition to Western influence. Whether or not this was true in practice is irrelevant for the introductory sentence. For example, the Communist Party of China is hardly Communist anymore. The modern party has been labeled totalitarian, a dictatorship, an oligarchy; these are all valid point of views. However, this is not something you include in the introductary sentence. The first sentence should detail what they believed themselves to be, even if the claim is contentious. Descenting points of view should be represented (and I have done so) in the lead, but the first sentence is not the place for it.--res Laozi speak 06:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for including the term "bandits" in the lead, however, it is still very wrong to call them nationalists, which is a modern political term, nonexistence in pre-modern 1900 era, when Tianxia (All under Heaven) was the norm, and nearly all foreigners were seen as barbarians, if not "Devils". To call them "Nationalists" is just as wrong as saying "Boxers love to eat KFC chickens", as KFC chickens were unavailable back then. Arilang talk 08:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This is historically wrong, plain and simple. The concept of nation states has existed since the 17th century in the West (see Westphalian sovereignty), and has existed and has been applied to East since the first half of the 19th century, through contact with the West: "The increasing emphasis during the 19th century on the ethnic and racial origins of the nation, led to a redefinition of the nation-state in these terms". The Tianxia concept was already heavily diluted by the 18th century with Han distrust of the Manchus (who were traditionally considered to be barbarians), and became officially abandoned with the Treaty of Tianjin in 1858, which was 40 years before the Boxer Rebellion in 1898. "Following their defeat in the Second Opium War, China was forced to sign the Treaty of Tianjin, in which they were made to refer to Great Britain as a "sovereign nation", equal to itself. This made it impossible for China to continue dealing with other nations under the traditional tianxia system, and forced it to establish a foreign affairs bureau."--res Laozi speak 08:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Graphical representation oftianxia thought, showing the Emperor at the center, surrounded by major and minor officials and then tributary kingdoms and "barbarian" tribes.


The Treaty of Tianjin may have been signed by the Manchu rulers in 1858, and Great Britain may have been regarded as "sovereign nation" by then Manchu emperor, but All Under Heaven concept had been with Han Chinese for 4000 plus years, and do you seriously think that it will simply go away when Manchu rulers began signing one or two treaties? Moreover, nearly all the Boxers members came from China rural hinterland,, and they were ignorant as well as uneducated, do you seriously think that 1900 Boxers would understand those modern political terms(nationalist, anti-imperialism, etc.)?

Moreover, using your own words:"The Tianxia concept was already heavily diluted by the 18th century with Han distrust of the Manchus (who were traditionally considered to be barbarians)", OK, Manchus were distrusted by the Han Chinese, and all the Boxers were Chinese, now, in 1900 Boxers(Han Chinese) suddenly all ganged up to fight the foreigners, because they suddenly begin to love Qing Dynasty, the dynasty that belong to Aisin Gioro family, whom the Han Chinese would regard as "Barbarians", you tell me, is not this theory a bit far fetch? Arilang talk 09:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your defintion of nationalism is wrong. Nationalism does not mean pro-government, and as the Tea Party Movement shows, nationalists can hate the government. Government =/= national identity, nationalism is akin to patriotism, and as I've shown, national identity existed in China during the 19th century, and became more fervent than ever with fears of Western influence. Your reply contradicts itself. You accept my assertion that "Tianxia concept was already heavily diluted by the 18th century", while saying that "concept had been with Han Chinese for 4000 plus years, and do you seriously think that it will simply go away". This is logically inconsistent. Also, you still haven't addressed the fact that your POV is contradicted by the very sources you've provided. I understand you want to add your POV into the lead, but the introductory sentence is not the place for it.--res Laozi speak 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
POV or not POV, I still advice you to go and read 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目 , by 侯宜傑. All these books and essays were important BR documents that cannot be ignored. Arilang talk 10:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
But they shouldn't be included in the introductory sentence, which is the point I've been trying to make. ;) Analysis of the Boxer Rebellion, from both points of view, belongs in the lead, just not in the introductory sentence, as per the Manual of Style. So far your focus has been on the first sentence, but you are happy with the rest of the lead, I assume? --res Laozi speak 10:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
" but you are happy with the rest of the lead, I assume?" My answer is a flat NO, Not happy at all. The current lead has too many "weasel" lines, too many unnecessary comments, like the one of Mark Twain. This lead is just too long, and tedious. If I am to write it, it shall be like this:(1) Boxers were xenophobic bandits who practice Chinese Spirit possession. The initial slogan was :To fight off the Manchus and to revive Ming Dynasty (Chinese:反清復明). (2) Empress Dowager Cixi recruited Boxers to fight the Guangxu Emperor, that was when the Boxers force expanded rapidly, and the slogan was changed into "扶清灭洋" ("Support Qing, destroy the Western"). (3) Thinking that the boxers might help her to fight the western nations, who already had embassy in Peking, Empress Dowager Cixi declared war on 11 nations. (4) When the Eight Nations Alliance sent in troops to protect their embassy staff and other civilians,the Empress fled. (5) Upon her return to Peking, she ordered the executions of all the leaders of the Boxers, signaled the end of this upheaval. Arilang talk 13:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


"national identity existed in China during the 19th century, and became more fervent than ever with fears of Western influence." National Identity may have existed in China during 1800-1900, but tell me one thing, are you talking about the Manchus rulers, which was a minority, or the majority of the population, the Han Chinese? Who identify with who? As far as I know, they do not like each other. Arilang talk 10:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
An ethnic identity is different from a national identity. But the thing is, neither liked the West. :) --res Laozi speak 10:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
As an example: The Scottish may dislike the English and vice versa, but both groups consider themselves to be British.--res Laozi speak 10:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You have yet to answer my question: What was that "National Identity" you mentioned? Reference? Books? Arilang talk 10:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, there are many books about this topic. On Chinese national identity: "China was brought into the modern nation-state system in the nineteenth century... The catalyst for this turn was the national crises that came after China's defeat by the British during the 1840—42 Opium War and by the Japanese during the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War. The historical defeats and the subsequent humiliation at the hands of imperialist powers were the impetus for the rise of Chinese nationalism." If you're looking for a more general definition on what a national identity is, here's one: "National identity is the relationship between nation and state that obtains when the people of that nation identify with the state." Keep in mind, however, the differences between state and government. Using the previous example, the Tea Party Movement is against the government (or, specifically, the Democratic administration), but they remain patriotic towards the state (the United States).--res Laozi speak 11:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Western scholars can write anything they like, and books can say this and that, on such a complex topic like Chinese History, I am sure there are many different angles for us to look at. If you don't mind, who is this author Suisheng Zhao? His Chinese name, and any other books written by him? To me, 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目 , by 侯宜傑, are essential reading for serious readers who want to find out more about BR. Arilang talk 13:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Suisheng Zhao is a professor of International Relations at the University of Denver. On Wikipedia, even for articles on Chinese subjects, books written by Chinese scholars are not considered preferential to those written by Western ones.--res Laozi speak 14:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added more references verifying that the movement was indeed a nationalist one.--res Laozi speak 15:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yuan Weishi unreliable- Yuan lies about Ronglu, claiming he was pro Boxer, in reality, Ronglu was pro foreign and anti Boxer

Arilang1234 has posted text written by Yuan Weishi, criticizing Ronglu for supporting the Boxers. The following evidence from academic texts written by people with PHDs in history, not philosophy which is what Yuan Weishi has degree in, expose Yuan's lack of knowledge about Ronglu and the Boxers.

Ronglu deliberately sabotaged the performance of the Imperial army during the Boxer Rebellion. When Dong Fuxiang's muslim troops were eager to and could have destroy the foreigners in the legations, Ronglu stopped them from doing so.Paul A. Cohen (1997). story in three keys: the boxers as event, experience, and myth. Columbia University Press. p. 54. ISBN 0231106505. Retrieved 2010-06-28.< The Manchu General Zaiyi, Prince Duan, was xenophobic and was friends with Dong Fuxiang. Zaiyi wanted artillery for Dong Fuxiang's troops to destroy the legations. Ronglu blocked the transfer of artillery to Zaiyi and Dong, preventing them from destroying the legations.X. L. Woo (2002). Empress dowager Cixi: China's last dynasty and the long reign of a formidable concubine : legends and lives during the declining days of the Qing Dynasty. Algora Publishing. p. 216. ISBN 1892941880. Retrieved 2010-06-28. When artillery was finally supplied to the Imperial Army and Boxers, it was only done so in limited amounts, Ronglu deliberately held back the rest of them.Stephen G. Haw (2007). Beijing: a concise history. Taylor & Francis. p. 94. ISBN 0415399068. Retrieved 2010-06-28.

It was Ronglu and other "moderates", who withdrew the Kansu Muslim warriors from Beijing, in order to let the foreigners march right in. The Muslim troops were feared intensely by the foreigners.Sterling Seagrave, Peggy Seagrave (1993). Dragon lady: the life and legend of the last empress of China. Vintage Books. p. 318. ISBN 0679733698. Retrieved 2010-06-28. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

Ronglu also deliberately hid an Imperial Decree from General Nie Shicheng. The Decree ordered him to stop fighting the Boxers due to the foreign invasion, and also because the population was suffering from the campaign against the Boxers. Due to Ronglu's treachery, General Nie continued to fight against the Boxers and killed many of them, while the foreign invaders were making their way into China. Ronglu also ordered Nie to protect foreigners and save the railway from the Boxers.Lanxin Xiang (2003). The origins of the Boxer War: a multinational study. Psychology Press. p. 235. ISBN 0700715630. Retrieved 2010-6-28. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

During the war, due to the fact that parts of the Railway were saved under Ronglu's orders, the foreign invasion army was able to transport itself into China quickly.

Due to Ronglu's sabotage, General Nie was forced to fight the Boxers as the foreign army advanced into China. The fierce Boxer insurgency led General Nie to commit thousands of troops against them, instead of against the foreigners. Nie was already outnumbered by the Allies by 4,000 men. General Nie was blamed for attacking the Boxers, as Ronglu intended to sabotage Nie and let him take all the blame. At the Battle of Tiensten, General Nie decided to take his own life by walking into the range of Allied guns.Jane E. Elliott (2002). Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war. Chinese University Press. p. 499. ISBN 9629960664. Retrieved 2010-6-28. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Wikipedia is not your internet forum, if you think "Yuan Weishi unreliable", go to other web site forums and talk it over. Arilang talk 22:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ 侯宜傑 (2010/10/08). The true face of the Spirit Possessed Boxing--Yi-Ho-Tuan「神拳」義和團的真面目. 秀威資訊科技股份有限公司. pp. 133/134. ISBN ISBN 13 ／9789862215319. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ 侯宜傑 (2010/10/08). 「神拳」義和團的真面目. 秀威資訊科技股份有限公司. p. 151. ISBN 13 ／9789862215319. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ 袁偉時 (2006-04-16). "揭開義和團及反帝反封建真面目". YZZK. Retrieved 10 November 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boxer_Rebellion/Archive_3&oldid=1153604908"