Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Rather boys-own looking and US/west-centric ... Can we change it to show more actual focus on the rebellion aspect? ] (]) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
*]
*]
:No, the current pictures shows the largest battle of the war and showed a soldier who is very notable. ] (]) 16:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:I'm open to it, and the description of "boys-own looking" is quite correct. But it's better for someone to bring forward a specific alternative which we can use under the policies and directly compare the current picture to. ] (]) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:We should change it back to a battle in accordance with what most war pages do since a map does not exist. I don't understand why we want to "change it to show more actual focus on the rebellion aspect" when ] exists. The Boxer Rebellion is not understood as a movement but as a war or intervention. I believe we should change it back. ] (]) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::I agree, this was a major war. I perfer the that included three pictures and information on what parts of the British Empier helped. ] (]) 23:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I support making a four-quadrant infobox as a compromise with the 3 old infoxbox images plus the current one (even though it's already in ] where I personally believe it belongs). That should correct the issue raised by ] about the infobox being too long. However we need to get ] on board since they've reverted changes to the current image which they changed it to. ] would you support the old infobox in four-quadrants with your ] picture? ] (]) 16:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, that sounds like a solid compromise. ] (]) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Infobox military conflict
| conflict = Boxer Rebellion
| partof =
| date = 1899–1901
| place = Northern China
| result = Allied victory
| combatant1 = Eight-Nation Alliance
| combatant2 = Boxers
| image = {{multiple image
| border = infobox
| perrow = 2
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Siege of Peking, Boxer Rebellion.jpg
| alt1 =
| image2 = Battle of Tientsin Japanese soldiers.jpg
| caption = '''From top to bottom, left to right''':
{{flatlist|* Siege of the Legations in Peking * Battle of Tientsin * Battle at Beijing Castle * Boxer Rebellion painting * Boxers in China * allied artillery}}
==Gods and ghosts==
}}
:::I think this could work, I mean the top 4 are all the same style (maybe crop out the description in picture 3) but other than that they all go together. Same thing with the two pictures, they both look good together. This is just an idea, but I think it would look good. I also think the boxer Rebellion can easily get 6 pictures in there info-box.
:::Only change I would make is to crop out the extra descriptions and blank stuff on pictures 3 and 5. ] (]) 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::No, the images are too small at this size, and thus defeat the purpose. ]] 20:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Like I said it is just an an idea. We could make the picture or info-box. We should at least have more than one picture in the info box. ] (]) 20:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::No infobox has to have multiple images. We should have an infobox that fulfills its purpose (key facts at a glance), and multiple images should only be entertained if they do not interfere with that, A mosaic of small color blobs would interfere in this way. ]] 20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Above Chinese text will be translated when have more time.
::::::All I am saying is we should have more than one. ] and ] would go together. I just thing only have File:Boxer-tianjing-left.jpeg, is too little and doesn't show the full war. ] (]) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
See ], ], ], ], ]
:::::::I will repeat myself: we do not have to have more than one image; it is more important that the images we present are legible. ]] 20:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with you ] that 6 images is too much (though I refer you to ], ], and ] to support that it's probably more often than not that infoboxes have multiple images).
::::::::However, referring to the above discussion, we came to an agreement that a 4 quadrant infobox was justified and probably necessary to strike a balance between "western-centric" depictions and ones which accurately depict the movement underlying the war. However, there is a distinct difference between ''who the Boxers were'' and the ''conflict itself''.
::::::::Moreover, we need to keep in mind that the ] involved numerous countries and their depictions of the conflict will inform a viewer's first impression and understanding of the page.
::::::::As it stands, and where I agree with ], an image simply depicting the ] does not do this page justice. We are currently ''over simplifying'' the infobox which is not its purpose. Let's get back to designing a four quadrant infobox which strikes a balance between ''over simplification'' and ''over complication'' if you are ok with that ]. If not, let's discuss the issue with a multipolar depiction beyond that "we do not have to have more than one image" when there is a clear expression and agreement that more than one image would enhance the page.
::::::::As a proposal to get this started, how about four quadrants - one with a Japanese depiction, one picture of the Boxers, the siege of Tientsin, and another picture depicting the Boxers or allied troops? ] (]) 13:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::As long as they're all legible I am not opposed to having four images, but I do not agree that the present state is untenable or oversimplified. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm glad we're in agreement! I would design the infobox myself but I am sure someone else can do a better job.
::::::::::I don't think the current state is untenable but the depiction of the Boxers also isn't great. It looks like a scan from somebody's photo album since the image appears it was cut and pasted from the look of the upper border. The numerous artist illustrations depicting the war should be legible. ] (]) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
== Section to be moved ==
:::::::::::I don't think the current state is a concern nor see it as oversimplified though I am happy with the proposed four picture approach representing a variety of belligerents. I am however a strong proponent of using photographs for this, as opposed to illustrations. Going back to the comment of IP who kicked off this discussion in April, the Western illustrations can be more than a bit ], which is to say - the fanciful glory and adventure of war. I'm thinking of the Siege of the Legations illustration when I say this, have to say the other illustrations aren't quite legible to me in the six picture format. Sticking to photographs is better. ] (]) 13:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Strongly agreed with the "no illustrations" point. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the "Conflicting depictions of the Boxers" section should be moved to the ] article (which needs a major rewrite/expansion, BTW). ] (]) 08:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::To be fair articles contemporary with ] use illustrations. ''See, e.g''. ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ''But see'' ].
:::::::::::::However, I have a few proposed photographs which evidently must be in the public domain.
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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::I can agree photographs are better, I personally believe that ] is one of the better pictures wecan uses. ] could go with with it in a 4 quadrant infobox. ] (]) 17:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
==War reparations==
:::::::::::::I think that one is good too, but could do with a crop. ], This is a good start (tried to do some very rudimentary observation of the ]) but may require another iteration to show up properly in a crowded infobox. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I put the amount of war reparations paid by China in modern value, based on the data of the Misplaced Pages's article , because for the readers it is easier to understand than when the amount are put in ancient values.
::::::::::::::Perhaps maybe this image could work. It's a collage with elements of both the Western Intervention and the Boxer Movement.
] (]) 04:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::] ] (]) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I think it would be an economical solution to include two images: one in the vein of the present image illustrating the rebellion as such, and one illustrating the Western intervention. Does that sound viable? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
==Dagu (Taku) Forts==
: This points to a problem: the article title is "Boxer Rebellion" (though I am among those who think it should be "Boxer Uprising") not "Boxer War." So I support the quest for at least a picture that has something to do with the Boxer Rebellion or Uprising. Maybe a map? ] (])
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..] (]) 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 ], 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. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
::I have not used a single textbook from mainland china, or any chinese source for that matter, while you reference Chinese websites (with .cn domain) and claim that i am the one who is copying PRC textbooks?
== Casualties not displaying in article ==
::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.
Please edit article to actually display the casualties. The text is there, but it is not appearing in normal view. Thanks. ] (]) 01:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:Fixed, 'twas another bracketing error. Thanks for noticing. ]] 01:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::Also, i specifically mentioned how two Manchu princes, ], and ] sabotaged the Chinese army during the war to let the western imperialist powers seize beijing, this is covered extensively in the current article.
::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.
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 03:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
::And, testimony directly from the westerners and western soldiers fighting in this war state on how the Chinese army was using modern artillery and weapons to systematically destroy and defeat them numerous times, from "Indiscreet Letters from Peking: Being the Notes of an Eye-witness" and " China in convulsion, Volume 2" are eyewitness accounts from westerners in the war that i reference, which stated repeatedly that the Chinese army outgunned, defeated, and used advanced tactics like sniping and hidden artillery to ravage eight nation alliance positions. And since these were primary source, i used "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", which is a secondary source by a scholor Jane E. Elliott, and it backs up everything in the primary sources.] (]) 00:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
== Infobox disruption ==
== The foreign casualty rate was beyond the 200% mark. ==
@], if you're actually looking at the diffs, you would see your reversion messes a lot up more than just adding commanders not mentioned in the article back into what's meant to be a summary of the article. As it stands, the infobox is about at capacity per ]—I'm sure some of the figures listed could be swapped out once the article is properly written to include them though. At this point, we should be looking at the sources and asking if each item listed constitutes a key fact about the conflict. What you shouldn't keep doing is indiscriminately stuffing it out of spite, though. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Fascinating. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I'm not "indiscriminately stuffing" the infobox as you claim. I very clearly updated the infobox to a more complete version and encouraged editors to update the body of the article so it matches up with the infobox. For someone who constantly "enforces" Misplaced Pages policies as per the edit history of this page, I would suggest you actually add information for once, rather than removing it. ] (]) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::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.] (]) 00:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
I'm open to it, and the description of "boys-own looking" is quite correct. But it's better for someone to bring forward a specific alternative which we can use under the policies and directly compare the current picture to. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
We should change it back to a battle in accordance with what most war pages do since a map does not exist. I don't understand why we want to "change it to show more actual focus on the rebellion aspect" when Boxer movement exists. The Boxer Rebellion is not understood as a movement but as a war or intervention. I believe we should change it back. ReidLark1n (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I support making a four-quadrant infobox as a compromise with the 3 old infoxbox images plus the current one (even though it's already in Boxer movement where I personally believe it belongs). That should correct the issue raised by Parsecboy about the infobox being too long. However we need to get JArthur1984 on board since they've reverted changes to the current image which they changed it to. JArthur1984 would you support the old infobox in four-quadrants with your Boxer movement picture? ReidLark1n (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Siege of the Legations in Peking * Battle of Tientsin * Battle at Beijing Castle * Boxer Rebellion painting * Boxers in China * allied artillery
Date
1899–1901
Location
Northern China
Result
Allied victory
Belligerents
Eight-Nation Alliance
Boxers
I think this could work, I mean the top 4 are all the same style (maybe crop out the description in picture 3) but other than that they all go together. Same thing with the two pictures, they both look good together. This is just an idea, but I think it would look good. I also think the boxer Rebellion can easily get 6 pictures in there info-box.
Like I said it is just an an idea. We could make the picture or info-box. We should at least have more than one picture in the info box. LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
No infobox has to have multiple images. We should have an infobox that fulfills its purpose (key facts at a glance), and multiple images should only be entertained if they do not interfere with that, A mosaic of small color blobs would interfere in this way. Remsense诉20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I will repeat myself: we do not have to have more than one image; it is more important that the images we present are legible. Remsense诉20:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
However, referring to the above discussion, we came to an agreement that a 4 quadrant infobox was justified and probably necessary to strike a balance between "western-centric" depictions and ones which accurately depict the movement underlying the war. However, there is a distinct difference between who the Boxers were and the conflict itself.
Moreover, we need to keep in mind that the Boxer Rebellion involved numerous countries and their depictions of the conflict will inform a viewer's first impression and understanding of the page.
As it stands, and where I agree with LuxembourgLover, an image simply depicting the The Boxers does not do this page justice. We are currently over simplifying the infobox which is not its purpose. Let's get back to designing a four quadrant infobox which strikes a balance between over simplification and over complication if you are ok with that Remsense. If not, let's discuss the issue with a multipolar depiction beyond that "we do not have to have more than one image" when there is a clear expression and agreement that more than one image would enhance the page.
As a proposal to get this started, how about four quadrants - one with a Japanese depiction, one picture of the Boxers, the siege of Tientsin, and another picture depicting the Boxers or allied troops? ReidLark1n (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
As long as they're all legible I am not opposed to having four images, but I do not agree that the present state is untenable or oversimplified. Remsense ‥ 诉13:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad we're in agreement! I would design the infobox myself but I am sure someone else can do a better job.
I don't think the current state is untenable but the depiction of the Boxers also isn't great. It looks like a scan from somebody's photo album since the image appears it was cut and pasted from the look of the upper border. The numerous artist illustrations depicting the war should be legible. ReidLark1n (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the current state is a concern nor see it as oversimplified though I am happy with the proposed four picture approach representing a variety of belligerents. I am however a strong proponent of using photographs for this, as opposed to illustrations. Going back to the comment of IP who kicked off this discussion in April, the Western illustrations can be more than a bit Boy's Own, which is to say - the fanciful glory and adventure of war. I'm thinking of the Siege of the Legations illustration when I say this, have to say the other illustrations aren't quite legible to me in the six picture format. Sticking to photographs is better. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that one is good too, but could do with a crop. , This is a good start (tried to do some very rudimentary observation of the rule of thirds) but may require another iteration to show up properly in a crowded infobox. Remsense ‥ 诉17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps maybe this image could work. It's a collage with elements of both the Western Intervention and the Boxer Movement.
I think it would be an economical solution to include two images: one in the vein of the present image illustrating the rebellion as such, and one illustrating the Western intervention. Does that sound viable? Remsense ‥ 论21:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
This points to a problem: the article title is "Boxer Rebellion" (though I am among those who think it should be "Boxer Uprising") not "Boxer War." So I support the quest for at least a picture that has something to do with the Boxer Rebellion or Uprising. Maybe a map? ch (talk)
Wiki Education assignment: Representing Rebellion--China's Boxer Uprising
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahshubin, TrevorCinseros2225 (article contribs).
@HawkNightingale175, if you're actually looking at the diffs, you would see your reversion messes a lot up more than just adding commanders not mentioned in the article back into what's meant to be a summary of the article. As it stands, the infobox is about at capacity per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE—I'm sure some of the figures listed could be swapped out once the article is properly written to include them though. At this point, we should be looking at the sources and asking if each item listed constitutes a key fact about the conflict. What you shouldn't keep doing is indiscriminately stuffing it out of spite, though. Remsense ‥ 论17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not "indiscriminately stuffing" the infobox as you claim. I very clearly updated the infobox to a more complete version and encouraged editors to update the body of the article so it matches up with the infobox. For someone who constantly "enforces" Misplaced Pages policies as per the edit history of this page, I would suggest you actually add information for once, rather than removing it. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg)
.jpg)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahshubin, TrevorCinseros2225 (article contribs).