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)
Declaring war and surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes as an act of war by every possible measure. How could it possibly be based upon a peaceful intention? --] (]) 22:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
::Prince Ronglu and Prince Qing invited the foriegners to take shelter inside the zongli yamen but the foreigners were paranoid and refused, instead, they shot at all chinese that passed by the legations, which led to them being blockaded. Its natural that a government would be concerned about keeping the trigger happy marines under control before they shot even more people and cause more resentment, which would have led to more support for the Boxers.] (]) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
::: Whether it is "natural" or not is your opinion. Can you actually provide any '''verifiable''' source stating that the Chinese government tried to actively fight against the boxers to stop their belligerency for the purpose of respecting the obvious diplomatic protocol i.e. non-violation of diplomatic missions? Can you prove, against nearly every serious historian, that the Imperial Chinese Army surrounded to '''protect''' the diplomatic quarter from the boxers? What some Princes did personally does not automatically warrant any official policy of the government. --] (]) 15:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: You saying "surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes.... war... based on peaceful intention" is equally your own personal opinion, and per sources already in the article, we already know that forces (the Boxers and Kansu Braves) were already attacking the foreigners in the legations, they received no orders from the government to proceed in such an attack. These two sources say Prince Qing sent his bannermen to protect the foreigners and invited them to the zongli yamen, even sending his own bannermen to attack the boxers and kansu braves.] (]) 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Your references not withstanding, YKatakura's statement that "surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes as an act of war" is not a matter of opinion. It was already a longstanding diplomatic and political agreement, well before the events being discussed here. Such agreements were on paper as early as 1709. China, in the person of the Empress Dowager Cixi, had already agreed to the Vienna Convention previous to 1900, most likely on the very day of her ascension. I would suggest a refresher in international political history before further errors are presented in rebuttal to members in this discussion.--] (]) 04:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::The diplomatic quarter was "surrounded" by imperial army forces to '''clear out Boxer insurgents hiding in the legations area''', and "diplomatic protocol", had been violated '''numerous times''' by foreign powers before any such actions in the legations took place, including the by German Baron von Ketteler, the '''illegal''' ] by foreign forces- .
::::::Thats not even mentioning the ], which even the american commander '''refused to participate''' in becaues it was an illegal without any such declaration.] (]) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::This is irrelevant to my point. Please stay within the immediate topic. Thank you.--] (]) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (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)
== regarding questions some had about the origins section ==
: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}}
the reason the origins section is vague, and does not detail much about the arrival of the boxers, is because there '''isnt''' much to say about their origins. They arose spontaneously in various groups in Shandong in response to various foreign interferences like missionaries and seizing of concessions. If it sounds vague to any of you, we can't do anything about it, thats just like asking why the ] article doesn't detail much about Tutankhamun's childhood- because '''we don't know'''. Nothing short of a time machine would answer your questions so i think the article is fine the way it is regarding factual information, if you have a problem with grammar, everyone is welcome to fix it.] (]) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
}}
:::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.
== Non Neutral Standpoint and poorly written ==
:::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)
Many of the sentences in the article seem random and disjointed. Additionally, the numbers don't seem to add up as it is claimed by the article that virtually every battle was won by the Boxers and heavy casualties were repeatedly sustained by the Western forces and yet the casualties list seems to show totally in the allies favour (something like 3000 westerners to 38000 chinese casualties) this seems to hhint at further biases in China's favour. I suggest someone needs to read through and edit alot and check some of the facts. ] (]) 19:06, 22 January 2011 (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)
::::::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)
::Saying "numbers don't add up" is ] and ], since you are synthesising and coming to various conclusions on your own. I have listed a whole group of battles in the article, Crushing of boxers in Northern and Central Manchuria,Boxers attacks on Chinese Eastern Railway, Battles on Amur River (1900), Defence of Yingkou, which were '''not''' won by chinese forces. Heavy casualties '''were sustained''' by westerners during the siege of the legations, where they only numbered a few hundred. Show me where is says a battle was '''won''' by the boxers in the article, and virtually nothing will come up. I just checked, the word "won" only appears once, victory only appears three times, and only one refers to a chinese victory. I deleted all the nianhua pictures already.] (]) 01:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I will repeat myself: we do not have to have more than one image; it is more important that the images we present are legible. ]] 20:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with you ] that 6 images is too much (though I refer you to ], ], and ] to support that it's probably more often than not that infoboxes have multiple images).
::western forces during numerous battles numbered a few hundred or a few thousand. Therefore, when the westerners lost a few hundred, that is considered "Heavy" by historians. Alot of chinese casualties were lost during the invasion of manchuria and by the way- virtually nobody kept count of chinese casualties at the ] and the ], as noted by references on those respective articles, so the casualty figure in the article is probably not even accurate either its more, or less likely, less. And again, i would like to note virtually nowhere does it come up in the article that the word "Victory" or "won" is used to describe the chinese actions, only twice.] (]) 01:22, 24 January 2011 (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 ] involved numerous countries and their depictions of the conflict will inform a viewer's first impression and understanding of the page.
Heaviness of casualties is generally calculated based on a percentage rather than absolute numbers, but it's somewhat subjective since you might calculate it based on actual numbers killed or including wounded, and then one might need to decide whether that means severely wounded or minor injuries. The anon does have a point about the brokenness of the writing. I've been working on the Origins section and most of the time that's involved staring at it till my eyes bleed trying to wring some sort of consistency from it. I'm not able to get sources (my local libraries are all little town libraries and the nearest major city library doesn't have anything near the sort of books I need and the university library there doesn't have any east asian texts at all) so I'm kinda stuck for expanding it. ] (]) 18:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::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)
:I think the casualties for the Western military (3,000) given in the article is too high. Looking at the battles I cant come up with more than a few hundred dead -- although I don't know much about the Russian occupation of Manchuria. But was that really part of the Boxer Rebellion? I don't think anybody has a clue about Chinese casualties. Probably in the low thousands for soldiers but with many thousands of civilians killed. I've seen estimates of 30,000 Chinese Christians killed by the Boxers. The Western invaders also did their share of indiscrimate killing of Chinese civilians. I agree that this article is difficult to try to revise. There are whole sections of the article that should be deleted so that a fresh start could be made to come up with something that reflects a middle-ground of what this immensely interesting and controversial event was all about. Smallchief 18:57, 26 January 2011 (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.
::There were several thousand boxers in manchuria during the war, and death notices were posted throughout towns by them, urging people to target Russians. The worst fighting in the war occured in manchuria, over 100,000 russian troops invaded compared to only 2,000 for Seymour's expedition. The ] bandits were the chief source of resistance to Russian invaders. ], ], ], ], ]] (]) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::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)
:::::::::::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)
:I have to agree with the IP, the section "peaceful Chinese intention" seemed to be written as a defence of the Chinese role, and although i have removed some of the phraseology, it still does in my opinion. I don't dispute the facts, since I know little of them, however the expression "Only party X were doing Y" and "Actaully they did not do z but the very opposite" - when we have no reason in the text to think they did Z, ''seem'' very clumsy POV pushing and lead to distrust of the surrounding text. To say that observing contradictions in the article is WP:SYN seems absurd. All figures should be sourced, if there is a contradiction between the sources, as there often is, we should make it clear that they disagree. ''] ]'', <small>11:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
::::::::::::Strongly agreed with the "no illustrations" point. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::To be fair articles contemporary with ] use illustrations. ''See, e.g''. ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ''But see'' ].
::User:CWH is revising the article pretty well. I do not have any objections to his changes so far.] (]) 20:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::However, I have a few proposed photographs which evidently must be in the public domain.
::::::::::::I can agree photographs are better, I personally believe that ] is one of the better pictures wecan uses. ] could go with with it in a 4 quadrant infobox. ] (]) 17:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::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've made some edits to the lede, mainly removing notes that were redundant (more than one cite for the same information); ancient (to journalistic accounts of the time): not reliable; or not preferable when clear and well written modern scholarship is easily available. My understanding of ] is that notes and links in the lede should be kept to a minimum in any case. I also moved some material to shorten and make the chronology more logical and lightly edited for consistency.
::::::::::::::Perhaps maybe this image could work. It's a collage with elements of both the Western Intervention and the Boxer Movement.
If anyone is interested, I'd be glad to spell out my reasoning for particular references. Thanks foryour patience. ] (]) 05:24, 11February2011 (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)
: 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? ] (])
== i have found reliable sources for chinese use of electric mines and works refering to torpedoes ==
Several American say that Chinese forces used "electric Mines" on the beihe (peiho) river during the Boxer Rebellion
I have also found some reliable references regarding chinese use of "electric torpedoes", but they all date to the period before the Boxer Rebellion.
] (]) 19:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
== Atrocities section ==
This needs some expanding on what Chinese/Boxers did. There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral. ] (]) 10:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Real Life isn't neutral. The Allies were the ones who were out of their home countries, and invading another country which never attacked them in all their history. When we write an article on a terrorist attack or a bank robbery here on Misplaced Pages, we don't pretend that we have to give equal time to the perpetrator and find some dirt on the victims, we report the facts, which '''is neutral'''- the perpetrator committed the XXX atrocity and the victim is the victim. We don't '''invent atrocities''' by the victim to make it appear neutral.] (]) 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
] (]) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
== "Western" ==
I don't think this term should be used, unless it's in a citation. It's lazy and vague. "Western" can cover a vast arrange of countries not involved in the conflict. I would use "Alliance" to refer to troops, "foreign" or state specific nationalities. ] (]) 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Then the tolstoy one stays since his citation specificlly mentioned westerners.] (]) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
] (]) 16:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
== Conflicting attitudes within the Imperial Court section ==
== Casualties not displaying in article ==
I cannot see how the citation at the end of the first paragraph supports all of that text. does not seem to refer to anything discussed in that paragraph. ] (]) 10:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please edit article to actually display the casualties. The text is there, but it is not appearing in normal view. Thanks. ] (]) 01:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:Fixed, 'twas another bracketing error. Thanks for noticing. ]] 01:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Scroll down to page 89 and 90 to see the rest of the text.] (]) 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 03:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
== Infobox disruption ==
An eight-nation allied relief force, including a British contingent, made its way from the coast, with much bickering between the rival commanders. When it lifted the siege on August 14, it proceeded to loot, kill and rape with as much ferocity as the Boxers had shown (with the difference that the Boxers looted and killed, but '''did not rape''').] (]) 16:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
@], if you're actually looking at the diffs, you would see your reversion messes a lot up more than just adding commanders not mentioned in the article back into what's meant to be a summary of the article. As it stands, the infobox is about at capacity per ]—I'm sure some of the figures listed could be swapped out once the article is properly written to include them though. At this point, we should be looking at the sources and asking if each item listed constitutes a key fact about the conflict. What you shouldn't keep doing is indiscriminately stuffing it out of spite, though. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
A fact is a fact. When someone commits a crime, and its notable, we write it out clearly. We don't try to make up crimes that the victim committed in order to make the article "neutral".] (]) 16:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not "indiscriminately stuffing" the infobox as you claim. I very clearly updated the infobox to a more complete version and encouraged editors to update the body of the article so it matches up with the infobox. For someone who constantly "enforces" Misplaced Pages policies as per the edit history of this page, I would suggest you actually add information for once, rather than removing it. ] (]) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
* You should note the following reference, p. 148, which states that Chinese Christians were killed, mutilated, and '''raped''' by the Boxers. http://books.google.com/books?id=o80WueMVIeQC&pg=PA148&dq=rape+boxer+rebellion&hl=en&ei=cqC1TZnJCdDUgAeTpL3GCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=rape%20boxer%20rebellion&f=false
To me your insistence that Chinese did not rape women is unprovable. Nobody witnessed the death of most of those killed by the Boxers. There were plenty of atrocities on both sides. The Boxers beheaded children. I don't know of any source that says the Western or Japanese soldiers did. Therefore, should we put a line in the article saying that the Boxers beheaded children, but there were no reports of Western soldiers beheading children?
Your objective is, of course, to portray the Boxers and the Chinese government in the most favorable light possible and to paint the sins of the West in the darkest colors. ] (]) 16:47, 25 April 2011 (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).